Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Read the Third time, and passed.

KINGSTON UPON HULL BILL [Lords]

WARWICK DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Poseidon Submarines

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there has been any change in arrangements for basing United States Poseidon submarines at Holy loch.

Mr. Home Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there has been any change in the arrangement for the basing of the United States Poseidon squadron at Holy loch.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): No, Sir, but these arrangements are of course kept under review.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister give an absolute guarantee that none of those Poseidon submarines will be either modified in any way or retro-fitted to carry Trident missiles, and then based at Holy loch or anywhere else in this country? What we want is a guarantee.

Mr. Stanley: I know of no proposal to do so. If the Americans had any such proposal they would, of course, put it to us.

Mr. Home Robertson: Does the Minister take any account of the fact that the majority of people in Scotland are strongly opposed to the deployment of nuclear weapons in Scotland? Can he give us an undertaking that the British authorities will be consulted if the Americans want to deploy Trident missiles at Holy loch? For that matter, will Parliament be consulted?

Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, American ballistic-missile-firing submarines have been based at Holy loch for some 20 years, and the conclusions of the British people on the matter were well expressed in 1979 and 1983.

Sir Antony Buck: Is not my right hon. Friend's last point a very cogent one? These arrangements have satisfied successive Governments of different colours, and they are to be regarded as satisfactory.

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for what he has said. I agree with him.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The American base at Holy loch is in closer proximity to a centre of population than would be permitted under American law for an American base in the United States. Is the Minister happy that that situation should exist in a British sovereign state?

Mr. Stanley: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the safety arrangements which apply to the Americans at Holy loch are the same as those which would apply in the United States. Those arrangements have endured well for 20 years.

Mr. Viggers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the overwhelming majority of people in this country support the NATO Alliance and the maintenance of adequate defences? Has he observed that of the 22 questions tabled by Labour Members for oral answer today, 19 are designed to cast doubt on our American ally or the adequacy of our nuclear forces? Does this not tell us more about the Labour party than about NATO?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend asks a most pertinent question. As I have said before, I am ceaselessly struck and disappointed by the fixation of the Opposition with the weapons of our allies, and their failure to take into account the threat posed by the weapons of the Warsaw pact.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us something about this matter, as he said that it was under review and yet, as I understood him, there are no proposals to install Trident missiles? What on earth is the review about? Why should the Government not start winding up the base as 360 Trident warheads and 160 cruise missiles are coming to Britain? Why do we need Holy loch as well?

Mr. Stanley: I said that the basing arrangements were under review, as they always are in relation to operational needs. I also made it clear that the American Government have made no proposal to us to base Trident missiles at Holy loch.

Trident

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has had to revise the costs of Trident since the publication of the defence Estimates.

Mr. Allan Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, since the publication of the defence Estimates, there has been any change in circumstances that require the revision of cost estimates for the Trident programme.

Mr. Ernie Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, since the publication of the defence Estimates, there has been any change in circumstances that requires the revision of cost estimates for the Trident programme.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The estimate, 'which I announced in March, of £8·729 million is that which, by convention, was used for this year's re-costing of the defence programme. The estimate will be reviewed in the context of the 1985 long-term costings and I will announce the revised figure to


Parliament next spring. Since I made my announcement in March there have been movements in the assumptions in both directions.

Mr. Powell: Does the Secretary of State agree with the first report of the Defence Select Committee, which says at paragraph 41 that
a more realistic Trident estimate is around £9,400 million
at 1984 prices? Will he give his views of paragraph 13, which says that an effective space-based anti-ballistic missile system
could negate what we have in mind to do
with Trident?

Mr. Heseltine: A space-based anti-ballistic missile system is still very much a research project. Nobody knows whether it is technically achievable or whether it will enter service, and we cannot build a defence strategy on those hypotheses. I have read the views of the Select Committee. It took into account the changing exchange rates. That was a matter of fact, although one cannot know what the exchange rate will be on the next update or during the rest of the life of the Trident programme. I shall stick to the precedents when I revise the defence Estimates which I make available to the House.

Mr. Roberts: When the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for the Environment he forced local government always to have regard to the revenue consequences of any capital expenditure. Does he agree that the running costs of the Trident system might be about £120 million—similar to the estimates for Polaris—or will it be more? Does that not put the cost of Trident up to £12 billion?

Mr. Heseltine: The estimates that I have sought and given are the capital costs through the life of the Trident programme. There are associated running costs, but if the hon. Gentleman's figure is right, seen against the background of a defence budget of about £17 billion, it shows what an even better bargain it is than we thought.

Mr. Ross: Is the Secretary of State happy with the fact that only £4·6 million of the contracts on Trident will be awarded to British companies? What is he doing to ensure that 45 per cent. only of the contracts are allocated to firms in the United States?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We have secured from the Americans an agreement that British companies will be free in many cases to tender for parts of the programme, which is 45 per cent. American procured. I must make the important caveat that, as this is an established and continuing programme, it is relatively difficult for outside contractors to break in to such an existing set of arrangements.

Mr. Robert Atkins: When considering the effect of Trident, if any, on the rest of the procurement budget, will my right hon. Friend give special attention to the European fighter aircraft, bearing in mind that about 50 technicians from the design department of British Aerospace have already left this year? They are anxious about Trident and would welcome my right hon. Friend's reassurance that it will not have an effect on the procurement programme.

Mr. Heseltine: I know of my hon. Friend's concern in these matters. That is why it is important to point out that the average cost of Trident is probably one sixth of the increase in the defence budget for which the Government have been responsible.

Mr. Forth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that much of the excitement about the cost of Trident that has been generated in some quarters is misplaced because, as a proportion of the defence budget, it is, if anything, less than the Tornado programme in its day?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right to make that important point. Perhaps an even more relevant example is the fact that the Labour party managed to modernise the existing Polaris system with the Chevaline process. The cost of Chevaline more than doubled in real terms during Labour's tenure of office, and Labour forgot to tell the House either of the programme or of the increased costs.

Mr. Ashdown: The Secretary of State will recall that in last week's defence debate the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said that while the unit costs of cruise missiles were lower, an independent deterrent based on cruise missiles and delivering the same number of warheads as Trident would prove more expensive. How can he expect the House to accept those figures when he will not say how many warheads Trident is planned to have?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have not yet reached a decision on the number of warheads that Trident is to have. That is something to which the Government must address themselves, and they will. However, I wish that the party for which he speaks and the party associated with it would make up their minds about whether they want us to have an independent nuclear deterrent. If so, I wish they would say when they thought that a decision was necessary and then tell us what they would do in place of taking it.

Mr. Walden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because of their position on Trident, both the Labour Opposition and the alliance—or perhaps part of it—are being driven into the absurd position where they are the only people asking Britain to spend more on defence irrespective of our needs or resources vis-a-vis the Health Service or education, and irrespective of value for money?

Mr. Heseltine: If I understood my hon. Friend, I think that I must remind him that the principal Opposition party has passed a conference resolution threatening to reduce conventional defence expenditure by about a third.

Mr. McNamara: Will the Secretary of State refer back to one of his earlier comments about the Select Committee, namely, that if the "star wars" concept takes place, and it very much looks as if it will, it will negate the need—indeed, the purpose—of Trident? When will we know, and when does the Secretary of State expect to know, at what point in the development of Trident he will have to come to a decision on whether to go ahead or negate it?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that the Government have taken the decision to go ahead with the Trident programme. We are committed to that, we have expended money in furtherance of it, and we intend to see the policy through. He is perfectly correct to ask about the hypothetical circumstances relating to the Trident programme and the "star wars" concept. It is not possible for us to take certain decisions now on the hypothesis of certain developments which may or may not take place, and the timing of which we cannot possibly foresee.

RAF Leuchars (Radar)

Mr. Bill Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to introduce a secondary surveillance radar facility at RAF Leuchars.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): Yes. It is planned that a secondary surveillance radar will be operational at RAF Leuchars by 1988.

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that positive reply. Will he confirm that this is a recognition of the importance which Leuchars enjoys, first as the premier airfield in that part of the world, and, secondly, because it is so helpful to civilian aircraft, the number of which passing through that air space has more than trebled in the last 12 months? It is because of that help that Leuchars desperately needs this equipment.

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Leuchars is an extremely important front-line air defence base. SSR will provide automatic identification and height information and will considerably facilitate the safety aspect associated with the very substantial increase in air traffic.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will this surveillance system make it possible to establish whether low-flying military aircraft in the east of Scotland are breaking the regulations?

Mr. Lee: I am not aware that it will have that particular advantage.

Trident

Mrs. Beckett: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there will be any change in targeting policy or strategy of the United Kingdom's strategic forces as a result of Trident acquisition.

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there will be any change in the strategy of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent forces as a result of Trident acquisition.

Mr. Allen McKay: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there will be any change in the targeting policy or strategy of the United Kingdom's strategic forces as a result of the Trident question.

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there will be any change in the targeting policy or strategy of the United Kingdom's strategic forces as a result of the Trident acquisition.

Mr. Heseltine: No. As we made clear in the Open Government Document 80/23 "The Future United Kingdom Strategic Nuclear Deterrent Force", the British Government's concept of deterrence is concerned essentially with an ability to pose a potential threat to key aspects of Soviet state power. That concept will remain the basis of our approach when Trident enters service.

Mrs. Beckett: As Trident's accuracy makes it a first-strike weapon for use in fighting a nuclear war, and as United States policy has adjusted to meet that change in availability, should not the Secretary of State now admit that either our Government's policy has changed in the same way, or he has wasted the country's money?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady must be fully aware that Trident is a replacement for the Polaris system, which the Labour Government supported for many years.

Mr. McNamara: Enhancement of the deterrent, not replacement.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman says that as though it were a condemnation. It is an enhancement because the Soviets have introduced a new generation of radar and ABM systems.

Mr. Bidwell: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the British public as a whole are far more worried about the prospect of nuclear warfare than they were a few years ago? As Polaris is not supposed to be a first-strike weapon because of the placing of the silos of the Soviet missiles, what faith can we have in the story that Trident will not be fully aimed? How are the Russians to know that? Does this not bring us nearer to the prospect of nuclear war?

Mr. Heseltine: I do not know whether the public are rightly or wrongly more concerned today. I know that they have always been concerned, and that is understandable. The one thing that I know about public opinion is that the public believe that the maintenance of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent is an essential part of our defence strategy.

Mr. McKay: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we are to purchase D5 missiles from the United States, with complete MIRV facilities? If we purchase them, will the missiles be with the 17-warhead capability, and if so, is it the Secretary of State's intention fully to utilise that capability?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will realise that we have not yet taken the final decision about the procurement of the systems.

Mr. Strang: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Trident 2D5, unlike Polaris, has the capability to destroy Soviet missiles in their silos? While that may not be the British Government's purpose, is not the fact that it has that capability enormously destabilising?

Mr. Heseltine: I wish that Labour Members, before telling us about the destabilising effect of our deterrent system, would spend more time concentrating on the threat that we face from the Soviet Union, with its continuing enhancement.

Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the Japanese had had a nuclear deterrent such as Trident at the end of the second world war the Americans might not have dropped their atom bombs? If that is the case, will my right hon. Friend further accept that it is a jolly good justification for our nuclear deterrent?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises a key point. We have had a nuclear deterrent in this country for nearly four decades, and we have lived in peace. The coincidence does not escape any independent observer of the scene.

Mr. Sackville: Does my right hon. Friend agree that no hon. Member has yet made a convincing case for an alternative to Trident which constitutes a credible independent nuclear deterrent?

Mr. Heseltine: That is why the Government took the decision that they did. I support what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the submarines based in Scotland, however efficient the targeting system, and however effective the warheads, could not, under any circumstances, knock out the SS20s?

Mr. Heseltine: The purpose of basing submarines in Scotland, along with a whole range of other decisions that we take about weapon systems, is to prevent a war breaking out, not to calculate the precise use of weapons that would be made in the event that it did.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the Secretary of State accept that any first use of Trident would be suicidal, both nationally and throughout the world? Will he give a clear commitment on behalf of the Government that there will be no first use of Trident and other British nuclear weapons?

Mr. Heseltine: I give precisely the same assurances as those which the last Labour Government gave when they were responsible for these matters. Everybody knows the consequences of the use of the weapon systems and their very existence is the single greatest guarantee of peace that we have.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Does the Secretary of State recall that he said to the Select Committee a few weeks ago that neither side would contemplate using nuclear weapons, on the basis of a rational judgment, because of their horrendous nature? If he accepts that he is a rational man, as I am sure he does, does that mean that he would not contemplate the use of Trident or any other nuclear weapon? If that is the case, what does that do to the Government's theory of deterrence?

Mr. Heseltine: I was going to say that I am as rational as the previous members of the Labour Government, but that is a pitfall into which I would rather not leap. No responsible Secretary of State for Defence would spell out in advance the hypothetical circumstances in which our deterrent would be put to use. The whole purpose of our weapon system is to deter, and in that it has been extraordinarily successful.

Equipment Sales (Norway)

Mr. Favell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding the sale of defence equipment to Norway.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): The wide range of defence equipment manufactured in this country is generally available for sale to Norway, as to our other NATO Allies.

Mr. Favell: May I remind my hon. Friend that Britain is about to enter into its largest single contract—for the purchase of £20 million-worth of gas from Norway's Sleipner field? What steps are being taken to alert the manufacturers of British defence equipment, and what steps are being taken to assist them?

Mr. Pattie: The manufacturers of British defence equipment are already fully aware of the opportunities for them in the sale to Norway. When the Secretary of State met his opposite number in Norway in February, he had conversations about the possibility of a memorandum of understanding being signed. My right hon. Friend said

then that if suitable opportunities for collaboration could be defined it would be worth proceeding. So far no such opportunity has been ascertained.

Mr. McNamara: The question of general defence sales to Norway, to other NATO Allies and elsewhere is fraught with political difficulty and enormous secrecy. Why is the Ministry not at least prepared to tell the House the value of the sales to particular nations, the extent to which they involve high technology and the two-way street involved in the sales? Without that information we do not know the effect of our sales elsewhere or the effect of our purchases. When one considers the ratio of United States purchases to United Kingdom purchases—whatever happened under the last Labour Government—are we not in enormous deficit against the United States, the most closed market for defence equipment in the world?

Mr. Pattie: It is not true to say that we are in an enormous deficit with the United States. When the Conservative Government came to office in May 1979, the imbalance against us was 4:1. Today it is about 2:1 compared with the ratio for other European nations of about 9:1. One of the main reasons for a degree of confidentiality about such transactions is the will of the purchaser. Purchasers wish such details not to be widely publicised.

Jet Trainer

Sir John Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many all-British tenders have been received for the contract to supply the Royal Air Force with a new basic jet trainer.

Mr. Pattie: None. Invitations to tender were only issued on 18 June.

Sir John Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he assure the House that when a decision is reached, all things being equal, the aircraft chosen for this all-important task will be that which provides most jobs for Britain and for people working in this country?

Mr. Pattie: I can certainly give my hon. Friend and the House an assurance that such considerations will be among the most significant of the factors that we shall take into account when arriving at our decision.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that the test that my hon. Friends will apply to the placing of the contract for the RAF's new basic jet trainer will be the net British job content involved? Will the Minister be a little more sensitive, more protective and aggressive about home-based jobs when he comes to place the contract than he was when he placed the order for Harpoon?

Mr. Pattie: I shall not weary the House by listing the occasions on which we have achieved deals which have been advantageous to British industry and British job content. British job content is one of the many important factors that will be weighed with all the others.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend accept that the choice should be made on the basis of providing the best aircraft to train the best pilots for the Royal Air Force and that it should not be tied to sales to or purchases by foreign countries? Does my hon. Friend agree that Firecracker, British designed and built, holds great hope for the future?

Mr. Pattie: I agree that the fundamental question is whether the Royal Air Force receives the plane that will do the job that it requires. As the tender invitations only went out on 18 June, it would be dangerous to start particularising across the Floor of the House about precisely what percentage of which of the individual contenders is British.

Mr. John David Taylor: Does the Minister agree that more British jobs will be provided if the award is given to the jet trainer most likely to gain the most sales to other countries?

Mr. Pattie: That is another of the factors that we must take into account. Obviously, I am aware of what lies behind the right hon. Gentleman's question. We have great regard for the industrial capability of Short Brothers, following its success with the United States air force.

Mr. McNamara: Is the Minister aware that the Opposition will specifically look for an order on the British mainland that will meet the needs of the declining British aerospace industry and compensate for the lay-offs that have taken place? When will a decision be taken? To what extent will speculative agreements be taken into consideration, as opposed to positive orders on the table?

Mr. Pattie: I said in my original reply that the invitation for tenders to be submitted went out on 18 June. It is our intention that tenders should be returned by about the middle of September. We hope that a decision will not be unnecessarily prolonged after that.
I am not quite sure that I fully understood the second half of the hon. Gentleman's question. I assure him that during the evaluation of the tenders we shall be assessing only what we consider to be real and firm returns to the tender process.

Cruise Missiles

Mr. Dobson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest ground-launched cruise missile testing programme.

Mr. Stanley: The overall flight testing of the ground-launched cruise missile has been satisfactory.

Mr. Dobson: Does the newly created right hon. Gentleman seriously think that the British people will think that the programme has been satisfactory when it appears from reports in the United States that more than half the missiles fired have not worked properly? Can he confirm that, although there are four tubes on each launcher, the best that the United States has managed so far is two missiles fired from each launcher? As Ministers have told us about previous American weapons installed in Britain, can the right hon. Gentleman now say whether there has been any previous example of so untested a weapon being introduced in Britain by the United States?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman's figures are not accurate. Of the 10 flight tests of ground-launched cruise missile, only one was classed as a failure.

Mr. Alexander: The women at Greenham common have made it clear that they intend to disrupt the testing programme. Can my right hon. Friend estimate the numbers now protesting at Greenham common and confirm that under no circumstances will they succeed in disrupting the testing programme?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend will be aware that we are considering the flight testing programme of the cruise missiles. As he referred to the off-base training programme, I am delighted to confirm that it has been carried out satisfactorily and that it has not been impeded by demonstrators.

Mr. Barron: Have the tests on cruise missiles shown that they can be used in the way outlined in the MOD document handed out at Greenham common—as an alternative to surrender or all-out nuclear war?

Mr. Stanley: The operational concept of cruise missiles is to add to deterrence and to provide an offset against the SS20 capability. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take into account the fact that before the NATO INF deployment decision was taken, there were 243 SS20 warheads targeted against us, but that figure had risen to 729 by the time that NATO deployment had actually began. Those are the facts about which we should hear more from Opposition Members.

Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend remember that when Members of Parliament were given an opportunity to visit Greenham common, Labour Members chose to posture outside the gates rather than take full opportunity to visit the base? Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who visited the base and took the opportunity to study the system were impressed by it, and especially by the safeguards built into it?

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I am certain that that visit was beneficial for those who took part in it in full and that it confirmed to my hon. Friends that the safety arrangements at Greenham common were undoubtedly satisfactory.

Mr. Cartwright: If the Netherlands Government finally reach a firm conclusion not to accept their 48 successfully tested cruise missiles, will the remaining four basing nations be expected to take a larger share of cruise missiles so as to maintain the original NATO concept of 572 warheads?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman asks a hypothetical question. We hope that it will remain hypothetical and that the Dutch Government will be able to adhere to the original NATO deployment programme.

Mr. Dalyell: If the figures of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) are not accurate, the right hon. Gentleman must have in his brief the accurate figures. May the House have them?

Mr. Stanley: As I recall, I have already given details of the flight testing arrangements and have said that, of the 10 flight tests, only one has been classified by the Americans as a failure.

Military Bases (Senior Officers)

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many military bases there are in the United Kingdom at which the senior military officer is an American.

Mr. Stanley: American service personnel at military bases in the United Kingdom are all under the command of an American officer. At most bases there is also a RAF commander acting in a liaison role but not subordinate to the American commander.

Mr. Hoyle: Whether or not there is an American commander, will the Minister say which bases house nuclear weapons? In particular, will he, in view of the fears of my constituents, say whether there are nuclear weapons or missiles stored at Burtonwood, Warrington? Will he take action to stop the heavy military manoeuvres by American helicopters at night, because they are disturbing the peace of the neighbourhood?

Mr. Stanley: The policy of the American Government is exactly the same as that of Her Majesty's Government in this matter; we do not confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons in individual places.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is it not still the case, as it was formerly, that there are no American bases in the United Kingdom but that certain British bases are placed at the disposal of our American allies and that the British flag continues to fly over them?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend has described the position accurately. The arrangements which exist today concerning the use of British facilities by Americans in this country are exactly the same as those which have existed for many years, including under previous Labour Governments. They are arrangements that have commanded the support of those Governments.

Mr. Boyes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) misled the House when he said that Labour Members did not go inside the cruise missile base at Greenham common? Not only did we go inside, but we learnt——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must be related to the main question.

Mr. Boyes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only did we learn that the base is under the command of a United States officer, but that he alone can decide whether to fire a cruise missile? Is he further aware that the nonsense of claiming that there is dual control was smashed out of existence by those of us who had an opportunity to talk to the American military forces?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening carefully, because the position is quite different from that which he suggests. No cruise missile can be fired in this country without the consent of the British Prime Minister.

Mr. Dorrell: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports of moves in the American Congress which could result in a reduced commitment of American service personnel to the defence of western Europe? While that may be welcome to Labour Members, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would represent a significant shift in the balance of advantage from West to East and would represent a major coup for Soviet propaganda?

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that extremely important point. We welcome the fact that the Congress resolution to which he referred, which called for a reduction in United States forces in Europe, was not passed. The spirit and tenor of many of the questions posed by Opposition Members can hardly encourage our American allies to continue their current level of presence in this country.

Mr. Redmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman say in what connection military personnel or bases have been used in connection with the current mining dispute?

Mr. Stanley: As has been said on many occasions, there is no involvement by military personnel in support of the civil authorities in that dispute.

Mr. Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that within the NATO Alliance, the great shield of the West, the nationality of the individual commander is immaterial? There are surely plenty of British commanders on the mainland of Europe.

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is right. The position whereby American forces in the United Kingdom are under American command is the same as that of British forces in Germany, who are under British command.

Mr. McNamara: Is it possible at any American base in the United Kingdom for British liaison officers to veto American operations?

Mr. Stanley: American operations will be carried out under overall NATO directions, because American forces in the United Kingdom are working within the NATO command structure.

NATO

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future size of the United Kingdom's financial commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Heseltine: Defence expenditure will show further real growth in 1985–86, when it will be about one fifth higher than in 1978–79. Some 95 per cent. is devoted directly or indirectly to Alliance tasks.

Mr. Beith: Does the Secretary of State accept that unless service pay increases are held down to 2·5 per cent. in 1986–87 there will be no real growth in defence expenditure? Will he hold down service pay to that extent, or will he withdraw other NATO commitments?

Mr. Heseltine: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's calculations. Service pay is only part of the defence budget and within the budget there are cash assumptions to take us from one public expenditure period to another. There is a need in this area, as in all others, to recognise the overall requirement for constraint.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Has my right hon. Friend had any conversations with the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, who requested that Britain, along with the rest of the membership of NATO, should increase its defence budget by more than 3 per cent?

Mr. Heseltine: I am fully aware of the views of the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, who, in the light of the growing Soviet threat, is urging that larger resources be made available for defence. I think that he will be the first to recognise the real contribution that the Government have made, having increased the defence commitment by £3,000 million per year since we were elected.

Mr. Douglas: What representations has the Secretary of State made to our NATO allies about taking cognisance of the fact that in years to come Trident will consume 30 per cent. of the Navy's procurement budget and is therefore likely to denude naval resources of Britain's real and specialised role within NATO for its frigates and other ships?

Mr. Heseltine: Rather than misrepresent the position to our NATO allies I would tell them the truth, which is


that throughout this decade real expenditure within the Navy budget will be higher than it was when the Government came to power, despite the fact that we have also to pay for Trident.

Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is good news that today Lord Carrington should be taking up his position as the head of NATO? Does he agree further that NATO should begin a period of introspection and examine its own structures? Should we not insist that there should be a thorough overhaul of the institution and its strategy?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It gives me the greatest possible pleasure to support his warm tribute to Lord Carrington. I am sure that the House will recognise that no more admirable or qualified person could have been found to take on the job of Secretary General of NATO. It is necessary to keep under review the strategies and procedures of the NATO Alliance, but we should not lose sight of the fact that the Alliance has helped to deliver the longest period of peace in contemporary European history.

Tenders (Small Firms)

Mr. Bellingham: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the number of small firms which (a) tendered for and (b) received contracts for amounts less than £10,000 in 1983–84.

Mr. Lee: Ministry of Defence policy is not to discriminate between large and small firms as such. Consequently, at this stage, there is no requirement to distinguish between the size of firms which tender for, or win, MOD contracts. In 1982–83 MOD headquarters placed some 30,000 contracts for values less than £10,000 and small firms secured a significant proportion of these. The figures for 1983–84 are still being evaluated but are not likely to be very much different.

Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the MOD could still do more to help small businesses, especially by instructing main contractors to devote more of their subcontracts to smaller businesses?

Mr. Lee: We want very much to encourage more competition among subcontractors. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the excellent booklet entitled "Selling to the MOD". About 35,000 copies of that booklet have been distributed. This has produced a substantial and marked increase in inquiries.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the greatest dangers to small contractors and subcontractors is a mergers trend, such as the GEC-British Aerospace merger, within the defence industry, and that the more mergers there are among larger firms, the more smaller firms will be gobbled up?

Mr. Lee: The biggest danger to the defence budget would be the Labour party's plans to reduce defence expenditure, which would affect defence contractors. We want to encourage small firms to compete. At the same time, we must have an eye to the success of our large firms in the international market.

RAF Binbrook

Mr. Leigh: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of RAF Binbrook.

Mr. Lee: After the phasing-out of Lightning air defence aircraft in 1987–88 RAF Binbrook will remain an RAF station, although its precise role has yet to be determined.

Mr. Leigh: Will my hon. Friend comment on speculation that the Tornado air defence variant will be based at RAF Leuchars and Coningsby and that the hangars at RAF Binbrook have not been hardened for that reason? Is he satisfied with the position whereby Binbrook closes as a fighter base, leaving this country with only six front-line squadrons defending it?

Mr. Lee: It is correct to say that the Tornado F2 will go to RAF Leuchars in due course. Binbrook will remain an RAF station, but we are examining all the options. I cannot at this stage say how active the station will be.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Flannery: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is attending a meeting of the European Council at Fontainebleau.

Mr. Flannery: When will the Government admit that their anti-trade union laws have proved to be completely unworkable? Do they intend to arrest all the miners and then all the railwaymen? Is it not a fact that the inexorable march towards a general strike, provoked by the Government, is now relentlessly under way? When London comes to a complete standstill tomorrow, will wiser counsels prevail in the Conservative party than those of a dictatorial Prime Minister and the ineffable and wretched Mr. MacGregor, who have provoked this action between them? Can we expect the Government to come to the negotiating table, announce that the pit closures will stop and discuss with the miners what will be done?

Mr. Biffen: It is highly irresponsible to speak in terms of a general strike. Those who do so invite the suspicion that there are elements which would like to use industrial action to secure against the Government what the ballot box failed to secure. It is highly damaging to make the kind of personal and inflammatory remarks that the hon. Gentleman has just made about the chairman of the NCB. That does nothing to assist the process of conciliation. The offer still exists for the National Union of Mineworkers to get around the negotiating table with the NCB, and the sooner the talks are resumed, the better.

Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread public concern at the news this morning that an unauthorised person—a vet—last month took part in a major surgical operation on a constituent of mine?—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a bit of a change.

Mr. Crouch: Will my right hon. Friend take steps as a matter of urgency to allay public fear so that such illegal and dangerous practices will never happen again?

Mr. Biffen: The matter raised by my hon. Friend is clearly of immediate and topical constituency interest, but it touches on an issue of wider general concern. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will seek to allay the anxieties to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. Steel: What does the deputy Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] have to say about the widespread condemnation among the 29 countries attending the East-West environmental conference in Munich of the wholly negative attitude adopted by the British Government at that conference? Does he agree with the Canadian Minister that the cost of inaction is even higher?

Mr. Biffen: To comment briefly on the right hon. Gentleman's initial premise, I am not deputy Prime Minister [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] I say that merely to put the record straight. I leave it to the memoir writers to interpret the meaning behind the right hon. Gentleman's use of the phrase.
On the substantive point, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, sulphur dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom have fallen by 37 per cent. since 1970 and further measures are under consideration to secure a further improvement. It is on that tangible and proven record that we wish to build.

Mr. Patchett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that millions saw on their television screens a constituent of mine on a miners' picket line being viciously truncheoned by a policeman, although he was not resisting arrest? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the loss of faith in British justice among my constituents and many others at the response of the Director of Public Prosecutions? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make a statement and to condemn police brutality?

Mr. Biffen: I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is a police complaints procedure to which his constituent can have recourse—[Interruption.] All those who jeer at that retort are part of a wider movement seeking to undermine the authority and effectiveness of the police in this country.

Mr. Donald Stewart: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ordinary maintenance grant for students for 1983–84 is only 92 per cent. of the value of the grant in 1980, which was low enough already? Does he agree that that is disgraceful and typical of the Government's meanness? If the Government do not wish to discourage further education, will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee an uprating of those grants for 1984–85?

Mr. Biffen: I can give no guarantee in the terms sought by the right hon. Gentleman but, as we have a grant system rather than the loan system which is operated in many parts of the Western world, I believe that, broadly speaking, higher education in this country gets a jolly good deal.

Mr. Fallon: Has my right hon. Friend read the report today that a shadow Minister recently had to be recalled to Standing Committee duties in the House over the public address system at Royal Ascot? If that is true, is it not a rather encouraging explanation for Labour absenteeism?

Mr. Biffen: I was not aware of that report, but I am prepared to be generous and agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that when he agreed in Cabinet to the changes in supplementary benefit arrangements made last week he consented to the removal of £86 million from some of the very poorest people in the land, including a large number of old people who depend on long-supplementary benefit?

Mr. Biffen: We are convinced that, taken in its broader sense, the package provides a very good deal and underwrites the Government's performance, which shows that during the lifetime of the Government scales of payment for social security recipients have risen by 81 per cent. compared with a rise in prices of 71 per cent.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. Gentleman please answer the question that I asked? Does he realise that because of the changes nearly 2 million very poor people are losing from 50p to £1 a week on incomes that can be as low as £36 a week? If he did not know what he was consenting to, will he give an undertaking to work to change it? If he did consent to it, is he not disgusted with himself?

Mr. Biffen: No, although I was conscious that the available scale margin to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was introduced by a Labour Government in 1966 and increased in 1968. The decisions that have been taken by my right hon. Friend are perfectly explicable in that context.

Sir David Price: Will my right hon. Friend take advantage of his opportunity to convey questions to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and, in connection with her negotiating position at Fontainebleau, stress that the whole of British coastal shipping waters are open to coastal ships from other EEC countries, whereas five of our major EEC partners preclude all British coastal ships from trading on their coastlines, which is quite contrary to the treaty of Rome? Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister use that as a negotiating card when she is accused of being anti-European?

Mr. Biffen: That is exactly the sort of question that can be legitimately directed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when she returns from Fontainebleau. That is a very good reason for my not anticipating her answer.

Mr. Terry Lewis: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lewis: Can the Lord Privy Seal justify the Government's intention to stop dole payments to unemployed Olympic athletes when an hon. Member will be participating in the Olympic games on a full parliamentary salary?

Mr. Biffen: I must say at once that I am unaware of the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers, so I shall not seek to answer his question. I shall refer it to the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is intolerable, and perhaps ironic, that the travelling public will be inconvenienced yet again by a 24-hour rail strike in support of the miners, many of whom, like my constituents, are not on strike but at work? Will he remind the chairman of British Rail that this sort of secondary industrial action is unlawful and that there is a remedy, which he should be encouraged to seek today?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that many will have noted what my hon. Friend said concerning secondary picketing and his advice to the chairman of British Rail.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the description of the Prime Minister in The Guardian as a politician whose tact and diplomacy has all the finesse——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Lady is relatively new to the House, but she must ask the Lord Privy Seal a question for which there is ministerial responsibility.

Mrs. Clwyd: In that case, Mr. Speaker, will the right hon. Gentleman advise the Prime Minister that she should use some real tact and diplomacy rather than, as yesterday's description of her in The Guardian states, using all the tact and diplomacy of a soccer hooligan on the terraces of Europe? Does he agree that the Prime Minister will return from Fontainebleau with only half a cake and not the budget rebate that she has consistently promised the House in the past few months?

Mr. Biffen: As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be answering those very questions in a much more authoritative fashion than I could ever dare essay. Meanwhile, I totally reject the hon. Lady's description of my right hon. Friend and, above all, deplore the rather lacklustre language employed by The Guardian, which is usually of a much higher literary standard.

Mr. Marlow: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marlow: How does my right hon. Friend react to the ugly scenes that we saw on television last night, when two working miners were savaged by the mob? How is it that in this 15-week catalogue of violence, intimidation and criminality, not one single picket has been sent to prison? Does my right hon. Friend believe that the Government have yet sufficiently taken on the Fascist Mafia of Arthur Scargill?

Mr. Biffen: It is for those who use the rhetoric of working class unity and fraternity to excuse the disgraceful scenes that were portrayed on television last night of the treatment of those two miners.

Mr. Dormand: Will the Leader of the House convey to the Prime Minister the fact that the miners will not succumb to the Government in the dispute and that their determination grows day by day? If the Prime Minister is not convinced of that, I invite her to come to my constituency and to see it at first hand. Does the Leader of the House believe that the Government have no responsibility in any circumstances for the hardship being caused to miner's wives and their families?

Mr. Biffen: I have no reason to doubt that the social security arrangements are being applied equitably in the mining districts as elsewhere.

Mr. Sumberg: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Sumberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware of recent elections to the NUM in the Nottinghamshire coalfield, where those who want to work have kicked out of office those who want to strike, including the brother of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Does that not show that the so-called tribute of the people has failed to follow the Churchillian maxim that one should trust the people?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that we make our own judgments and inferences, as my hon. Friend has. One thing is clear. The central feature of the dispute is that it divides mining community from mining community. That is the explanation of the frustrated bitterness shown by Arthur Scargill and his supporters.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that at the Bolsover election five miners who have been on strike out of a committee of eight were re-elected, so they have a majority? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the secretary at Welbeck colliery, who has been on strike from day one, has also been re-elected? As for my brother, he has been nominated by the Nottinghamshire NUM as the Labour party parliamentary candidate for the Sherwood constituency. That constituency is currently held by a Tory—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and after the next election there will be two Skinners here instead of one.

Mr. Biffen: I am not sure whether my immediate reaction should be that I do not know whether that pleases the Leader of the Opposition, but, my God, it pleases me. My second thought is that I should like to pay respect to this family contribution to ensure that Sherwood remains a Tory seat.

WELSH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of rural affairs in Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Railway Accident (Morpeth)

Mr. Roland Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have had an opportunity to study yesterday's Official Report, and you will have noted most carefully what the Under-Secretary of State for Transport said about the cause of the railway accident at Morpeth:
The cause of the accident seems likely to have been excessive speed on entering the curve. The reason for this has not yet been established.
Later I said to the hon. Gentleman:
Will the Minister withdraw his outrageous and scandalous remark?"—[Official Report, 25 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 688–90.]
It seems to me that it will be difficult to have a free, independent and fair inquiry after the Minister has prejudged the situation. Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister, while he must admit to having uttered those words, should come before the House and say that he has committed an error in making those remarks in view of the fact that it is now impossible to have a free and independent inquiry into the reasons for the railway crash?

Mr. John Ryman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As this tragedy occurred within a few miles of my constituency, I should like to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes). I give notice that I should like, to argue the matter fully tomorrow at 3.30 pm because, in my respectful submission, there has been a breach of the sub judice rule——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not give me notice about an argument that he might seek to make tomorrow at 3.30 pm. He must put a point of order to me today.

Mr. Ryman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to say that yesterday's statement by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, when he announced the establishment of the inquiry, contravened the sub judice rule of the House because of the manner in which the announcement was made. Would you kindly hear my argument, Mr. Speaker, and rule upon it?
In my respectful submission, the rules of sub judice and the rules of procedure in the House prevent comment by a Minister upon a matter that is sub judice. Sub judice is dealt with by the rules of criminal and civil cases. The establishment of a board of inquiry to investigate the serious railway accident comes within those civil rules. Therefore, the Minister was wrong in law and in breach of the rules of this House to state before the inquiry began to take evidence what the cause of the accident was.
The hon. Gentleman's announcement alleged that the cause of the accident was excessive speed by the train, which inhibits an inspector conducting the inquiry subsequently from establishing the cause of the accident. The Minister made the whole point of the inquiry useless because of the way in which he announced it. He announced the result of the inquiry and suggested the reason for the accident while he was establishing the inquiry. That constitutes a serious breach of the sub judice rule in civil cases.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the driver of the train, Mr. Peter Allen, is one of my constituents, I shall add my

voice to the expressions of anxiety of my hon. Friends. I implore you to do what you can to protect individual citizens from indiscretions of the sort made by the Minister.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The press published remarks made by the Minister after his statement which suggest that he realised that he had made a mistake. For the good name of the House and in keeping with our procedures, that is all the more reason why he should atone for his mistake on the Floor of the House. If he were prepared to do that, it would clear the matter and show that he had been exceedingly careless. It would also mean that his remarks would not have great bearing on the inquiry, which must inevitably take place into questions of such dimensions.

Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Inquiries into aviation accidents could provide a precedent. It is often said that such accidents are caused by height, speed or weather.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member and the House must realise that the points raised, although important, are not matters for the Chair. I remind the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman) on the subject of the sub judice rule that the Minister in his statement said that he would appoint one of the Department of Transport's senior inspecting officers of railways to conduct the inquiry. It is not a matter before the courts.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the question whether the sub judice rule was breached a matter for you? In the light of our representations and the serious prejudice that may arise, will you consider the matter afresh and find out whether the rule was breached? If it has been breached, it is a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Speaker: It is not before any court. There is to be a departmental inquiry. If the matter was before the courts, that would be a different matter.

Mr. Ryman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With great respect, that is not right.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Distinguished lawyer though the hon. Member is, he must not say such things to me.

Mr. Peter Shore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise only because I believe that no proper distinction can be made between a court of law and a tribunal which is appointed with the same functions as a court of law. I therefore believe that the distinction that you drew between the two is one that, on reflection, you would not wish to sustain. If that is so, and if the tribunal is as capable of being prejudiced as a court of law, it is a matter upon which you are duty bound to give a view.
I was in the House yesterday and listened to the exchanges. First, the Minister referred to what appeared to be the cause of the accident. Secondly, he referred to a previous case, as though it were analogous with the present one, on that stretch of line where an accident had occurred because the driver had exceeded the authorised speed limit.
In the light of the Minister's remarks, it is right that, if he has been misunderstood, he should make it plain that he is making no such suggestion or allegation.

Mr. Speaker: I must repeat what I said before. The sub judice resolutions passed on 23 July 1963 provide that matters awaiting or under adjudication in either a civil court or a criminal court should not be referred to. This is a departmental inquiry. The Patronage Secretary is present and he will have heard what has been said about the Minister's statement yesterday.

Local Government (Access to Information)

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the public's right to attend meetings of committees and sub-committees of local authorities; to establish a public right of access to information held by local authorities including memoranda, reports and research data, and minutes of decisions taken and recommendations made by committees and sub-committees and delegated individuals; to require local authorities to inform the public of their rights; and for related purposes.
Since 1960 it has been the view of the House, and the majority of the people whom we represent, that local and central Government should be carried on in public and not in private. There has been a perpetual battle to ensure that that basic principle of democracy is adhered to once people are elected to office. This afternoon I seek, with the support of the hon. Members for Bootle, (Mr. Roberts) and for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), on behalf of the three largest political groupings in the House, and the support of right hon. and hon. Members of all parties, to expand much further the right of the public to know what is done in their name by people elected to do jobs for them in town halls.
In 1960, the present Prime Minister introduced and promoted in the House the Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Bill. She said:
publicity stimulates the interests of local persons in local government. This is also very important."—[Official Report, 5 February 1960; Vol. 616, c. 1351.]
Later she said:
It is clear that when the public as of right attend meetings of authorities they may well not understand what is going on unless they are supplied with documents which make clear the subject matter under discussion."—[Official Report, 13 May 1960; Vol. 623, c. 774.]
The Bill was passed in 1960.
In 1972, a further step was taken, opening up even more local government processes to public scrutiny in the practical ways that are important—for example, when someone finds that land opposite where he lives is subject to a planning inquiry or application, or wants to know why the school down the road is being closed, and how the economic arguments led the local authority to make that decision. Hundreds of decisions made day by day and week by week throughout the land were opened up to public scrutiny.
Today, although it is fairly late in the Session, I introduce a Bill, if the House will permit it, in order to take a third step towards opening up local government. We want first to make sure that sub-committees as well as meetings of the full council are open to the public. It is a fact, regretted by many, that since local authorities were obliged to open up their full business to local people or any other interested parties, more and more decisions have been taken in sub-committees or by small groups of delegated councillors behind locked doors. Subcommittees as well as whole committees and the whole council should be open to the public so that they can hear the debate and understand what decisions are taken in their name.
If the public are to participate in that process and influence it, they will also need to be able to see beforehand the documents produced to enable those


decisions to be made. As long as members of the public pay a reasonable fee and ask at a reasonable time, they should be able to obtain copies of relevant documents. If a member of the public is not able to attend a meeting, or if he is alerted afterwards to a decision that has been made, he should be able at that stage to obtain the information.
There are occasions when the privacy of the individual or the particular confidentiality of the item under discussion is a good reason for a matter not to be opened there and then to public debate. [Interruption.] We have set out a schedule of very limited exempted categories. We intend that in future the presumption will be that people will be able to attend unless the matter falls into one of the categories in the schedule.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: There is the answer.

Mr. Hughes: No, it is not the answer. People will not be able to say that something is an exception unless they clearly state, at the meeting or in the documents, why that is so. That decision will be susceptible to challenge in the courts.
A few years ago a change was made so that when one applied for bail and was refused one was told the reason so that one could challenge the decision. That was a useful change in procedure. [Interruption]. There has never been a similar presumption in local government, and we believe that it is time that there was.
The Bill will seek to ensure that local authorities must give the public on demand, to see and take away, a list of all those elected in their name, with their addresses and the places where they can be contacted. More importantly, the Bill will also give people a right to be given a list of their rights to access to information in local government.

Mr. Skinner: And of who finances the Liberal party.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had a fair run today. He must not intervene from a sedentary position.

Mr. Hughes: We look forward to the day when the Bolsover council will support the Bill, which I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage.
The Bill has already been supported by many eminent organisations such as the Town and Country Planning Association, the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses, the British Safety Council, the Guild of British Newspaper Editors, and the National Housewives Association. It is also supported by local bodies such as the Southwark Chamber of Commerce, the Chiltern Society, the Gateshead law centre, the Ford and Pennywell advice centre in Sunderland, the Hartlepool housing aid unit, Plymouth youth aid, the Anglican diocese of Birmingham and the Bangladeshi women and children's welfare project.
The Bill has already been supported by parish councils throughout the country. They have not just supported the Bill—they have supported it in fulsome words.
When Horton parish council wrote——

Mr. Skinner: Has the right hon. Gentleman just come back from a health farm?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot have this argument on the Front Bench below the Gangway when a ten-minute Bill is being moved.

Mr. Hughes: Horton parish council was asked whether it would support the Bill. It replied:
The feeling at the meeting was so positive that a simple letter saying that we support your effort hardly seems enough but no doubt you will let us know if there is any more that we can do.
Wadebridge town council said:
Thank you for your letter, this was put on the agenda for the June meeting and after a full discussion the Town Council agreed fully to support this project.
Parish councils have been among those who are leading the way, telling the House that the Bill must be passed speedily into law. District and county councils of all political colours have begun to enact the Bill's provisions because of the pressure that it has brought to bear. I pay special tribute to Bradford, which has taken the lead and incorporated the Bill in its standing orders. The London boroughs of Hackney, Lewisham and Islington, the city councils of Bristol and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, the county councils of Tyne and Wear, West Yorkshire and Derbyshire, Yeovil, Northampton and Harlow district councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities have said that they support the Bill and hope that it becomes law soon.
We want the Bill because there are some amazing examples of local authorities not understanding in whose name they do their job. When asked whether it would support the Bill, Sefton replied:
I regret that severe restrictions on our staff do not now permit us to respond to questionnaires of this nature.
The Isle of Anglesey borough council, when asked what issues it did not allow to be disclosed, gave the simple answer, "Controversial issues." Northavon district council said that it would refuse to produce the documents because
Should you require any such details relating to Northavon District Council I would certainly want to know a little more about your Company and the people who have expressed such concern".
Many people do not yet understand the meaning of access to information. The Community Rights Project has brought the Bill to the House as part of the 1984 freedom of information campaign. I hope that Ministers who have supported freedom of information for the past 24 years will support the Bill and ensure that, by the end of the year, town hall discussions are open to the public—just as they were intended to be.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Allan Roberts, Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. Ken Weetch, Sir Bernard Braine and Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION)

Mr. Simon Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to extend the public's right to attend meetings of committees and sub-committees of local authorities; to establish a public right of access to information held by local authorities including memoranda, reports and research data, and minutes of decisions taken and recommendations made by committees and sub-committees and delegated individuals; to require local authorities to inform the public of their rights; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 204.]

Orders of the Day — Rates Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

POWER TO PRESCRIBE MAXIMUM RATES AND PRECEPTS

Lords amendment: No. 1, page 2, line 10, after first "to" insert "(a)"

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said' amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords Amendments Nos. 2, 16 and 18 to 21. I inform the House that Lords Amendment No. 1 involves privilege.

Sir George Young: We are considering two groups of amendments here. The purpose of the two amendments to clause 1 is to regularise the position of London boroughs as regards the levy to be imposed under that Bill by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. London Regional Transport is to be funded partly by Exchequer grant and partly by a levy issued to all the rating authorities in London—all the London boroughs. It would not be right to expect the LRT levy to be funded from within a rate-limited authority's expenditure level or rate limit, and these amendments to clause 1 will allow that levy to be excluded from any maximum. This is the same arrangement that we agreed for the precepts of the major precepting authorities and the Receiver of the Metropolitan police.
The other amendments, all of which are to schedule 1, are consequential upon the setting up of London Regional Transport in place of the London Transport Executive.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Opposition would like all authorities to be excluded from rate capping. However, I do not argue against the amendment but merely comment upon it, because in many ways it adds insult to injury.
Democratically elected and accountable bodies in London are to be rate capped. I shall stick to the London example because the amendment specifically relates to London Regional Transport. A whole range of its services will have to be met from within the limits of its rate-capped income, yet the Government are making an exception for London Regional Transport and the Metropolitan police. In effect, those two authorities, which are neither directly elected nor directly publicly accountable, will be given some form of exemption. That is like rubbing salt into the wounds.
The setting up of London Regional Transport and the removal of responsibility for London Transport from the GLC have nothing to do with the efficient organisation of transport needs in London, but has all to do with making the Government's already thin case for the abolition of the GLC a little stronger. Therefore, transport is to be taken away from the GLC.
The Secretary of State for Transport will be responsible for the tranport needs of Londoners. I have great fears for London's transport system if it falls into the tender mercies

and cavalier hands of the right hon. Gentleman. He will no doubt try to flog it off. Perhaps he will be more successful than his attempt to flog off Sealink.
The GLC—a democratically elected authority—is to be penalised by having London Transport taken away from it, and the Minister will allow the rate-capped authorities to fund their side of London Regional Transport without incurring penalties. What about all the other services that are of equal importance to the boroughs? No exception will be made for them.
The exemptions from rate capping, including London Regional Transport and the Metropolitan police, are part of the Government's approach to local authorities. Underlying it all is the Prime Minister's paranoia about the GLC and Labour-controlled local authorities. It seems that if local authorities get in the way of the Prime Minister their powers are taken away. In essence, that is what the Bill is all about.
Alternatively, selective hit lists are drawn up to get at Labour-controlled local authorities. That is the selective vindictiveness under which I am to be dragged in front of the Committee of Privileges. The Government are quite capable of—and perfectly willing to do it—drawing up a selective hit list when it suits their own purpose; then if the local authorities still get in their way they decide to abolish them.
This is a crazy way to approach the strategy for local government. It is an appalling attitude, given the way in which the Government seem to have made art absolute virtue out of their total hypocrisy and cant.
Another strand in the strategy is even more worrying. How much does the Secretary of State know about this morning's incident, when Mr. Bill Bush, the head of Ken Livingstone's private office, was arrested on Waterloo bridge and accused of handling a leaked Cabinet document? It had the Secretary of State for the Environment's signature on it when it was shown to him in Rochester row. How much does the Secretary of State know about the arrest of the head of Ken Livingstone's private office? Is this all part of the hotting up of a campaign of paranoia, hatred and victimisation against the Greater London council?

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): The hon. Gentleman asks how much I knew about the arrest of Ken Bush. The answer is, absolutely nothing.

4 pm

Mr. Banks: As a matter of fact, it was Bill Bush. I shall accept from the Secretary of State that he knew nothing about this case, but I cannot believe that none of the Ministers who are now sitting on the Front Bench were entirely in ignorance of that incident this morning. It just shows that we have reached the point where local authorities can be harassed by the Government in legal terms, and, when that clearly fails to gain electoral support, no doubt the instructions will go out to the police to start harassing GLC staff. There will be other quest ions asked of other Ministers to see whether they were involved in that incident.
This amendment adds insult to injury. London transport is to be taken away from a democratically elected GLC and given to an unelected, unaccountable quango. The Secretary of State for Transport will then be able to decide whether he will install certain services or cut them, and


what fares will go up. The Government are giving themselves an exemption while attacking all others. This is one more example of the selective vindictiveness that comes from the Tory party.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on one point. For the first time in many years, perhaps ever, the running and responsibility for a local service, in this case London transport, is being taken by the Department of Transport and there is no other body than the London Passenger Transport Committee available for consultation, except the quangos set up in the Bill. If the money is to come from the boroughs—I understand the Minister's exemption, which is both welcome and unwelcome for the reasons that my hon. Friend has mentioned—that means that there will be taxation without representation, other than by Members of Parliament. In other words, the Secretary of State for Transport of the day will be responsible to the users of the service either through consultative committees or through hon. Members. I put that point on record because it is one of constitutional accountability. If and when there are arguments as to the terms of reference for questions or anything of that sort, the fact that there is taxation with representation only through hon. Members should be borne in mind.

Mr. Jack Straw: I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on the amendment. Within the scheme of a thoroughly objectionable and undemocratic Bill, it is necessary to excuse from the criteria for rate capping those parts of a district's rate bill that are nothing to do with that district. That would include the Metropolitan police and London Transport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West was right to draw attention to the double standards that the Government will now operate, and one such case that the Under-Secretary has not mentioned. The Metropolitan police are subject to no serious control over their activities. It is well known that their costs have risen far faster over the past five years than even those of the county police authorities, yet their efficiency is the lowest of any police force, even allowing for special circumstances.
London Regional Transport hovers like a terrible spectre over the future of London's public transport system. If previous experience of transferring services from democratic authorities to controlled Government boards is anything to go by—the experience of Conservative Administrations with water authorities and ambulance services—Londoners can look forward to higher charges and a much worse service.
I rarely accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West of understating his case or not going far enough. However, he said that there was a thin case for abolition of the GLC. I know that he was using a piece of litotes to emphasise his point, but there is no case for the abolition of the GLC and no case for removing the control of London Transport from the GLC.
I travel on the London transportation system—an experience that many hon. Members enjoy, but one that is alien to the Secretary of State for Transport, who neither cares nor knows anything about the London transport

system. One of the great things about London Transport is that one can read the posters while waiting for a tube—one has to wait a much shorter time than one used to. The posters show the good news that there are improvements in services. It is possible to get a number 3 or a number 195 bus without waiting an inordinate length of time.
These are real and tangible improvements which have been made for Londoners who voted for them, but which will be taken from them by an authoritarian Government who hate the fact that London voted for an authority of a different political complexion from themselves. They cannot cope with that fact. They therefore wish to remove from its control the running of London transport and many other services and to abolish it. Not only did the people in London in 1981 elect to control the GLC a party of a different political complexion from the Government, but if elections were held in 1985 those people would, as the Secretary of State knows only too well, overwhelmingly re-elect a Labour-controlled GLC. The metropolitan county councils would be similarly re-elected.
We have been lectured this afternoon about the rules of sub judice. Apparently, they permit Ministers to pre-judge with impunity the outcome of railway accident inquiries. However, it would be neither right nor proper for me to pre-judge the outcome of the case of Mr. Bill Bush, who was arrested this morning but has now been released. However, there is a connection between that case and the authoritarian way in which the Government have removed the powers of democratic control over London Transport and have then sought to abolish councils and elections because they disagree with those councils.
In today's climate it is possible for members of the special branch to detain someone who works for an opposition party and to interview him over a leaked document that is related not to national security but only to the Government's embarrassment. Before Thatcherism and its authoritarian tendencies became rampant, there would not have been a climate in which the police could even have considered using their power to arrest and detain someone who worked for an opposition leader of a London council. What a hue and cry there would have been 10 years ago if somebody from Central Office had handled a leaked document—many leaks were being handled then—and had been arrested on Westminster bridge. This is not somebody who would have signed the Official Secrets Act. The hue and cry would have been enormous then, but now the climate is such that this is apparently likely to become commonplace.
I hope that, with the leave of the House, the Under-Secretary will seek to reply to the debate and will deal with the double standards that the Government are establishing. Under those double standards crucial services that could have been run by the district authorities are to be screwed down by the legislation. As we know from the experience of the water authorities and the Metropolitan police, there will not be proper accountability or democratic control over these new quangos and Londoners can look forward only to higher charges and a worse service.

Sir George Young: The debate has verged on a Second Reading debate on the London Regional Transport Bill. I shall try to reply to some of the arguments.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) exhibited almost terminal paranoia. He produced not a shred of evidence for his wide-ranging accusations about Ministers and others. He should use with care the


words "selective vindictiveness" of which he accused Ministers in connection with the case that has gone to the Committee of Privileges. I regret that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) associated himself with the innuendo in which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West indulged.
s
There is no disagreement about the principle. The object of the Bill is to curb local authority expenditure, so it makes no sense to include the LRT levy within the rate-capped expenditure of local authorities. Opposition Members were misleading in what they said about accountability. The LRT levies will be decided by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport who will be accountable to the House for his decisions. He will have to place the levy before the House in an affirmative order. He will want to ensure that LRT is run as economically as possible. No further powers will be needed to achieve that end.
It would be unacceptable if LRT were subject to rate limitation. That would amount to one Secretary of State capping another. That would be foolish and unnecessary, although perhaps somewhat amusing. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will strive to ensure that London Transport is run efficiently and effectively. I reject what the hon. Member for Blackburn said about the future of London transport when it comes under the LRT. I am confident that under the new administration Londoners will enjoy an efficient and effective transport service. I ask the House to accept the Lords amendment.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 2

DESIGNATION OF AUTHORITIES

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 2, line 37, leave out from beginning to "subject" in line 39 and insert—
(3) If the total of relevant expenditure as estimated for the purposes of the Rate Support Grant Report for any financial year (other than the first) in which this section is in force is greater or smaller than the total of relevant expenditure as estimated for the purposes of the Rate Support Grant Report for the previous financial year, the Secretary of State shall by order substitute for the amount for the time being specified in subsection (2)(a) above (whether £10 million or an amount previously substituted under this subsection) an amount which is proportionately greater or smaller except that any substituted amount may be rounded to the nearest £100,000.
(3A) The power to make an order under subsection (3) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 14.

Mr. Jenkin: The first of these amendments provides for the £10 million cut-off level, below which small local authorities will be excluded from selective rate limitation, to be uprated annually. The other amendment is consequential.
These are short amendments but they are important. They were made in response to proposals from Lord Sandford and they have been warmly welcomed by the Association of District Councils of which he has the honour to be president. In the amendments we are making it clear that, whilst we are intent on achieving savings from

excessively overspending councils, we do not want to apply rate limitation to the large number of small authorities whose total expenditure is a small proportion of local government spending. We particularly wished to avoid tying up scarce resources by rate capping a large number of small authorities. That was the purpose of the £10 million cut-off provided in the Bill as it was first brought before this House. Now we are providing that after the first year of operation when the limit will be £10 million the limit will be adjusted annually in proportion to the increase or decrease in the total of relevant expenditure as detailed in successive rate support grant reports. The increase or decrease will be rounded to the nearest £100,000. We do not want to become involved in an unrealistic degree of precision. Our purpose is to maintain the present value of the £10 million exemption.
We estimate that in 1985–86 about 277 authorities will be exempt from any risk of selective rate capping under the clause. The majority of such authorities will continue to be excluded from selective rate limitation thereafter. That means that we can concentrate on the larger authorities which are seriously overspending by significant sums in the aggregate.

Dr. John Cunningham: The irony about the amendment and the original provision is that the size of an authority bears no relation to the Bill. Small authorities do not necessarily charge lower rates. Many small authorities are responsible for some of the largest increases in rates that have taken place in the past three or four years. The claim that the Bill is about protecting people from rate increases is neatly turned on its head by this part of the measure. We are not against the amendment, but it demonstrates that the Bill is not about protecting people from increases in the rates. It is about something entirely different. It is about giving the Secretary of State powers to control authorities which he chooses to control for entirely different reasons.
If the Secretary of State wanted to give real force to his commitment to exclude some authorities absolutely he would abandon the general power in the Bill. It is significant that he and his colleagues in another place steadfastly refuse to do that because they know that in the end, if significant savings in expenditure are to result from the Bill, almost certainly such general powers will have to be used. We shall not oppose the amendment, although it highlights the inconsistencies in the Government's approach to the issue.

Mr. John Cartwright: I support the view expressed by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). The amendment is logical in that it continues the Bill's approach. Ministers say that ratepayers welcome the Bill's proposals. That claim is made frequently on behalf of the Government and there is probably some justice in it. Ministers argue that help is at hand for ratepayers who experience constant difficulty through oppressive councils deliberately forcing up rates. The Government, like the United States' Fifth Cavalry, are galloping to the rescue of hard-pressed ratepayers living in areas where the local authority spends large sums. People who live in areas where the authority spends less than £10 million will not receive Government help through the legislation. Some ratepayers in smaller areas may feel let down when they find that the help that they thought they might get is not forthcoming.

Mr. Peter Pike: I do not oppose the amendment, but it is illogical and goes against the principle of the Bill as expressed by the Government. Burnley will welcome the amendment because its budget is below £10 million. If the Government operated on the basis of grant-related expenditure being the target, Burnley would be 56 per cent. over that target. It seems illogical that a small authority with a budget below that level should be exempt. I want Burnley to be exempt, but is seems a wrong move from the Government's point of view.

Mr. Straw: I am pleased that Burnley will be exempt. Blackburn featured in at least one of the exemplifications for rate capping under one of the measures. I should feel aggrieved, when its expenditure over grant-related expenditure is about half that of Burnley, if it became a candidate simply because it had gone over a capricious and arbitrary limit.

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend is correct. Because the budget of an authority such as Blackburn happens to be higher, it is illogical—whether the cash target figure or GRE is used—that size should be the determining factor. Burnley and Blackburn are two good examples. They are in close proximity. Burnley spends well over the target on one basis but only marginally over it on the other basis.
The only reason why the Government support this amendment is to appease a large number of authorities that happen to be Conservative-dominated. Obviously I shall support it on behalf of my local authority, but it is illogical for the Government to support it.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) spoke I wondered whether the present leader of his local authority would have been pleased to hear him apparently arguing that his authority should be capped and not come within the exemption. I understand that the hon. Gentleman had the honour to lead his authority. However, he redeemed himself at the end of his speech and said that he would support the amendment.
The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) said that ratepayers in the small authorities would feel let down because their authorities would not be capped. The ratepayers of Greenwich would feel considerably let down if they heard their Member of Parliament—and not a Labour Member—say that he disagreed with the current spending of Greenwich, but was not prepared to concede that Greenwich was spending too much.

Mr. Cartwright: The Secretary of State constantly makes that point. It is the one thing that has stuck in his brain since the Committee stage. If he is surprised at my reaction, rather than simply visiting Liverpool and expressing surprise at the conditions he finds there, he should come to Woolwich and see the problems that face my constituents. He might then understand why I want to see more money spent in the right direction.

Mr. Jenkin: I recently paid a visit to Greenwich when I visited the Thamesmead estate.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that there was an illogicality in the exemption of a large number of very small authorities. That is not the case, and I firmly refute it. It is the operation of the well-known principle of de minimis. The hon. Gentleman should bear

in mind that the proportion of the total rate burden that any ratepayer must pay attributable to the district rate—if he is living in a shire district, and therefore bears his share of the county precept and the district rate—may be very small indeed, between 15 per cent. and 17 per cent., less than one fifth. In many cases, it may be a great deal smaller than that. Therefore, even if the district rate rose more than proportionately, the burden on the ratepayer proportionate to his total burden would be very small indeed.

Dr. Cunningham: Is not what the right hon. Gentleman said yet another illogicality? When we discussed these matters in Committee, he said that the increase in rates would be one of the criteria that he might use for the designation of an authority. He is now saying that small authorities can increase their rates by as much as they like and are absolutely free from all possibility of being designated.

Mr. Jenkin: Let us take the example of Basildon, which has increased its spending mightily, is now 68 per cent. over GRE, and spending above £10 million. It has taken itself out of the exemption. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's point is not a good one.
On the question of abandoning the general power, we shall come to the clauses dealing with that later. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the amendment that will exclude a large number of responsible, low-spending authorities from the operation of the general power. That is consistent with the principles that I have outlined.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lord's amendment, No. 4, in page 3, line 2, leave out
for all authorities falling within that class
and insert
either for all authorities falling within that class or for all of them which respectively have and have not been designated under this section in the previous financial year.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6.

Mr. Jenkin: This group of amendments is a little more complex than those that we have been discussing so far. I hope that the House will forgive me if I explain their purpose in some detail.
The main purpose of the amendments is to allow separate criteria to be applied to the selection of authorities for rate limitation if those authorities have already been selected for limitation in the prevous year. The need for the amendments arises from the way in which we have said we wish to make selections for rate limitation.
We have always argued that the purpose of the scheme will be to identify those high-spending authorities that have not responded to the calls for restraint in spending. Therefore, we propose to look at authorities' expenditure in relation to their grant-related expenditure assessment as the best available basis for assessing expenditure which is excessive compared with similar authorities.
We will look for some measure of how authorities are responding to the need for economies. In the first year at least, as I have indicated, we expect to have regard to performance against expenditure targets. I am not yet in a position to say precisely how we shall set out the criteria, but during the earlier stages of the Bill in this House I gave some illustrative examples of selection criteria. Those


hon. Members who served in Committee felt that it was a helpful explanation of how the selection process might work.
One of those criteria would have selected authorities spending more than 20 per cent. over GRE and more than 2 per cent. over their targets. For the purposes of explaining the amendment, I shall refer to that example. However, I want to make it absolutely clear that that carries no implication as to what might be the actual test that I shall announce to the House in a few weeks.
The problem that the amendment addresses is that in the second year of the selective limitation scheme authorities that were selected and limited in the first year would have had their expenditure limited by their rate or precept limit. In general, I would expect those authorities to be constrained to spend at or very close to their expenditure targets. So, if it was desired to use the same selection criteria in year two as in the first year, many of the authorities previously selected might automatically escape selection because it appeared they had met the criteria of having shown restraint in their spending. I am sure the House recognises that that would be contrary to common sense.
Such authorities, having been selected in the first year, may well be spending excessively by any reasonable test—certainly spending high compared with other comparable authorities, and if using the GRE test. They would be capable of making substantial further economies. It is well known to the House that when an expenditure limit is set under the Bill it forms an absolute limit and must be attainable. As we argued in Committee, it must be reasonable and the reasonableness must be justiciable. That is the most that can be expected in one year. However, such authorities may be capable in time of making substantial further economies.
As I say, the expenditure target is for only one year, and since performance in relation to target results directly from the rate limit and not from any change of heart it would not necessarily reflect any credit on the authority and it would say nothing about its attitude to spending in the future, so that there might be no sensible ground for refusing to select the authority in year two in those circumstances. That makes it necessary for the Government to have power—as we have already for different classes of authority—to use separate principles for authorities depending on whether or not they have previously been selected.
4.30 pm
I anticipate that the criticism of the amendment will be to the effect that, as a result of it, it might be possible to continue selecting authorities indefinitely, even if there were no longer any reason to do so, comparing their spending with that of other comparable local authorities. I assure the House that that would not be our approach. We shall want to free authorities from rate limitation as soon as it becomes sensible to do so.
One way in which we might reach such a view would be if the authority concerned, perhaps as a result of rate capping over a period of two or three years, established a spending level which no longer placed it among the high spenders. In those circumstances, it would be highly desirable that the powers of this measure should no longer be applied to it.
One would, of course, see whether there was any tendency to reverse that process. Clearly, one would need

to look at the general pattern of the spending of that authority. It might mean establishing criteria for selection which required previously selected authorities, for instance, to have reduced their rates to levels more typical of other authorities in their class, or to have made specified reductions in manpower which would be evidence of fairly long-term expenditure reductions.
The effect of rate limits on authorities would be to compel them to spend at or about the expenditure levels set for them. We would not want to give authorities credit for that if they were doing it, as it were, under compulsion. If they were able to go further and realise the savings more quickly, obviously that would be valid evidence of a change of attitude.
Taking the example I used earlier, if authorities generally were to be selected for exceeding their target by 2 per cent. or more and expenditure levels were, generally, to take selected authorities, below that 2 per cent. figure, it might be appropriate to set as the alternative criterion for those authorities that they should not have exceeded their target.
It is impossible at this stage to be absolutely clear about how the power will be used. We do not know how events will develop in the first year. One point we have in mind is that it may be possible for authorities to use accounting devices—creative accounting, as the jargon has it—to make short-term apparent improvements in their expenditure performance. Obviously, we should want to be sure that any alternative criteria did not give scope for manipulations of that sort. Evidence of more than one year's spending might be required. I can be absolutely firm in saying—I give the House this clear assurance—that we do not wish to keep authorities in rate limitation for one year longer than necessary.
The origin of amendments Nos. 5 and 6 is obviously similar to that of amendment No. 4. Nos. 5 and 6 recognise that if an authority has been selected for rate limitation, then for the purposes of further rate limitation action it is effectively in a different class from an authority which has not hitherto been selected. In this case we are concerned that authorities selected for rate limitation in more than one year shall enter the latter year having made some economies in the past. They might find it more difficult to make further economies in the future, certainly more so than authorities selected in, say, year two for rate limitation for the first time. That search for economies may become more difficult, perhaps not immediately but later.
It would, of course, have been open to us to rely on the re-determination procedures—that is, where a council may apply for a derogation—but I understand from an interview that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) recently gave to the Municipal Journal that the Labour party view is that local authorities should not apply for derogations. That is their choice. In this case, it seems to us that it is right to give ourselves power to impose a less stringent limit on authorities which have already been capped because, as I said, they may not be able to make the size of economies as those authorities that are to be capped for the first time.
We looked carefully at whether this added complication could be avoided, in which case this series of amendments would not have been necessary. However, we came to the conclusion that there was here a genuine area of difficulty, and it was felt that both for the purposes of selection—to make sure that they would still be selected,


notwithstanding that they had made savings—and so that the rate limit could be made less stringent than those being selected for the first time, because we should not be unfair to authorities selected for a second or subsequent time, it was necessary to have these powers.

Dr. John Cunningham: This is a disturbing group of amendments. The Secretary of State is further widening his powers of control over democratically elected local authorities. Not content with the wide and free-ranging powers that he has already given himself in exercising his judgment on the criteria that he will apply, he is now extending his freedom even further.
Contrary to what was said in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman is seeking powers to apply different criteria, even within the same class of authority, to suit his own purposes. That is disturbing because he is now giving himself the refined power and duty to make specific judgments almost about individual councils, even within the class of authority to which they belong.
We have said from the outset that the Bill's powers are dangerously anti-democratic because they allow the Secretary of State in Whitehall to override the judgment of local electors and to make decisions in an arbitrary way. Everything that the right hon. Gentleman said in putting forward the amendment confirms us in that belief. When will the House be told what principles he will apply so that we may discuss these issues properly? So far the right hon. Gentleman has given himself absolute discretion and latitude, and we realise that that is likely to remain the case. I trust that announcements of this kind will be made when the House is sitting and not when Parliament is in recess. I think I see the right hon. Gentleman assenting to that request. If so, I hope that he will not leave it to the last day of the Session, because a number of serious questions arise.
When we raised this matter in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), who is not at present in his place—I make no point in saying that; I mention it simply for the record—said:
It is conceivable—though rather unlikely—that the principles could differ between classes of authority".—[Official Report, 9 February 1984, Standing Committee G; c. 270.]
When we pressed the issue on a number of other occasions in Committee, that or similar responses were obtained from Ministers.
The Secretary of State has had second thoughts and he wants the power to continue to designate an authority year after year, to tailor the criteria to suit his purposes and to change them year after year. When an elected coucil meets the first set of criteria that the Secretary of State applies, and even if it does what he requires it to do, he can pose new requirements and change the criteria to suit his purposes. He is seeking the power to require the authority to do something more. This is the antithesis of democracy. This is Big Brother in action. The right hon. Gentleman is requiring that year after year, regardless of what local electors have said or what they have voted for, he shall be able to determine what the council does.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain if we sought to take powers which would make lawful whatever expenditure reduction a Secretary of State decided, however unreasonable. We

have not taken that view. We have decided that we must ask authorities, which by definition are spending excessively having regard to the Government's economic objectives, to make such savings in any year as are reasonable and obtainable. The expenditure of some authorities is so excessive that it will take them several years to reach a level of spending which will not conflict with the purposes of the Bill. In those circumstances, it is entirely reasonable to make provisions to enable an authority to handle the matter sensibly over a period of years.

Dr. Cunningham: This is 1984 and this is doublespeak. It is astonishing. The right hon. Gentleman is safeguarding himself from challenges in the courts. He is introducing a safeguard to prevent local authorities from taking him to court on the basis that what he is asking them to do would undermine their statutory obligations to their electors——

Mr. John Powley: That is nonsense.

Dr. Cunningham: If the hon. Gentleman takes that view, having been a member of the Committee which debated the issue at great length, it is clear that he was not listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. The Secretary of State is introducing amendments that will enable him to keep control of an authority for so long as he shall determine. He will be the judge and the jury. This is a device to enforce regular cuts year on year on individual authorities until he has decided—not the electors and not Parliament—that he is satisfied with what has been done to the level of services and employment in the individual local authority as well as with the reduction in expenditure that has been achieved.
When the Bill left this place it provided that an authority could be designated for rate limitation only in accordance with certain principles. It stated that the aim of such principles would be to establish that an authority's spending was excessive having regard to general economic conditions. Different principles could be applied to different classes of authority. For example, the metropolitan county authorities could be judged to be overspending by criteria different from those applied to non-metropolitan county authorities. As I have said, the Secretary of State has wide-ranging power and latitude.
4.45 pm
The effect of Lords amendment No. 4 is to permit at least 16 different sets of principles to be used. There will be one set for previously designated metropolitan authorities and another set for non-designated metropolitan authorities. There will be two sets of principles for each of six classes of authority plus a set for each of four authorities that are not in a class, which are the GLC, ILEA, the City of London and the Isles of Scilly.
There is a massive panoply of restrictive measures at the disposal of the Secretary of State. The amendment is far from being the innocuous measure that the right hon. Gentleman suggested because it will greatly increase his flexibility and his room for manoeuvre in designating authorities, taking control of their budgets and overriding the local electors' wishes. Furthermore, the parliamentary safeguards at the designation stage of the process are minimal. Parliament is not required to approve the principles that are used to designate authorities, and


nothing could be clearer than that. The Secretary of State is giving himself wide-ranging, punitive and authoritarian powers that are beyond the control of the House of Commons. That is the reality of what is taking place.
Lords amendment No. 6 increases the number of principles that may be used to determine an expenditure limit for an authority in the same way as Lords amendment No. 4 increases the number of designation principles. The Secretary of State argues that he intends to use the provision benignly. There is nothing benign about any aspect of the Bill. The Bill is malevolent, the opposite of benign. It is draconian and authoritarian. It is centralist in conception and anti local electors' views and wishes. To describe any part of it as benign is deliberately to seek to disguise the Government's intent and purpose. I shall be asking the House to resist the amendments. They are yet one further step along a reactionary road.
The Secretary of State smiles, but he knows in his heart of hearts that his Department, however distinguished his officials are, is not equipped to make the judgments that should be made in the towns, cities and boroughs of England and Wales. His officials have proved that over and over again in existing legislation, let alone in what is proposed in the amendments. The Government's approach is arbitrary. The ease with which entirely different lists can be constructed is frightening. That is borne out by the leaks over recent weeks on the information that the Secretary of State has already been considering. The leaks concerning Portsmouth city council emerged during the recent by-election.
I very much regret that my friend, Bill Bush, was arrested on Westminster bridge. Why do the Government not pick on someone their own size? Why do they not pick on me? I have received plenty of leaks from the right hon. Gentleman's Department and elsewhere. They pick on defenceless people like Bill Bush and Sarah Tisdall and bring down all the draconian might of the establishment to intimidate these people. What better argument could we have for the need for a freedom of information Act than the abuse of power which has been demonstrated again today?

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The previous Labour Government did not introduce a freedom of information Bill.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman had better keep quiet because it was his distinguished father who made a definitive speech about elective dictatorships and the threat that they pose. I should advise the hon. Gentleman to have nothing to do with the Bill.
It is clear from the evidence presented in the past few days by the Secretary of State in answer to a parliamentary question that some authorities have increased expenditure but reduced rates while others have increased rates but reduced expenditure. Those effects are most often the result of the iniquities of the block grant target and penalty system rather than any objective measure of the efficiency or otherwise of the authorities involved, Labour or Conservative. That position applies right across the board to all those authorities, including those arbitrarily excluded from the impact of the legislation by the £10 million limit.
Today the Secretary of State said, "If you as local authorities do what we tell you, you will be free at some point." He did not, however, say when. What price local

democracy? What will be the purpose of holding local council elections in the middle of a period of several years when an authority is controlled from Marsham tower? What will be the purpose of people voting in those circumstances? What is the worth of the assurance of the Secretary of State that he will not want to use those powers for one moment longer than necessary? That was an absolutely worthless comment that would have been better left unsaid.
We have always argued that the Secretary of State was providing himself with the absolute freedom to pick upon and fit up any council in any part of the country which suited his political purposes. That is the nature of these powers. That is the origin of the Bill. The amendments propose to take that position one stage further along an authoritarian road. The amendments stink, and we shall oppose them.

Mr. Chris Smith: I rise briefly to express my strong disagreement with the Lords amendment. I shall gladly go through the Lobby in support of the amendment of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
Those of us who sat through the long watches of the night on the Standing Committee will recall that we had many discussions about the way in which the Secretary of State would select authorities for designation. Some of us pointed clearly to the danger that he would exercise his power to catch those authorities that he wished to catch. We pointed clearly to the danger of the actions on which he was embarking.
The right hon. Gentleman subsequently provided us with a graphic confirmation of precisely what we warned of in the exchange of words and letters between himself and Opposition Members on the subject of Portsmouth. The right hon. Gentleman revealed in that exchange that his Department was considering a number of lists of potential authorities and that effectively the Department was juggling those authorities to see which would be caught under particular criteria. There was one saving grace in the arguments that the Secretary of State was advancing during our discussions in Standing Committee on that precise point—whatever principles were eventually determined within one class of authority, those principles would stand for all authorities within that class. That was a point that the right hon. Gentleman could not breach.
The Secretary of State has moved that we should agree with an amendment—I suspect that it was inspired by himself—which was passed by the other place and seeks to take away that safeguard. Frankly, the Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. Either an authority within a particular class is overspending according to a set of principles clearly laid down and accepted by Parliament or it is not. The fact that in the previous year the authority was designated and had orders placed upon it by the Secretary of State should make no difference to the decision on whether it is an overspender in the present year. Frankly, the right hon. Gentleman's argument does not hold water.
The Secretary of State has now revealed the fact that not only will he select in a politically motivated way classes of authority and criteria to fit particular classes but he will operate this legislation in a particularly motivated way within a particular class. Nothing could be clearer than the amendments drafted by the other place and which


the right hon. Gentleman is now supporting. The amendments must be resisted, and I shall take great pleasure in doing so.

Mr. Cartwright: Like the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), I thought that in all conscience this clause was bad enough when it left the House. Inevitably, the idea that authorities would be selected for rate capping on the basis of different sets of principles for different classes of authority—metropolitan areas would be judged differently from non-metropolitan areas and counties would be judged differently from districts—raised the suspicion, which I am sure the Secretary of State must understand, that the right hon. Gentleman was seeking to juggle the net to ensnare those authorities that were within his sights from the word go. As the hon. Member for Copeland said, the juggling went slightly wrong in the case of Portsmouth. No doubt that is one argument for making the criteria a good deal tougher and more selective.
The amendments substantially increase the number of different criteria that can be used. They make the mesh of the net a good deal finer, enabling the Secretary of State to be even more flexible in his approach to the problem. I and other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate find that an unappealing prospect.
The other problem arising from the impact of the measures is one to which the Secretary of State has, in a sense, drawn our attention. It concerns the ability that the Bill provides the Secretary of State to lay down over a period a regime for a rate-capped authority. This means not just that an authority will be rate capped for one year but that it can look forward—if "look forward" is the correct phrase—to year after year of rate capping when the Secretary of State can move the finishing post each time. As the authority, panting down the home stretch, finally achieves the cuts demanded of it in year one, its hand goes out for the finishing tape only to discover that for year two the tape goes a bit further on, and the authority must start the whole race over again for year two. When the authority finally achieves that cut, weary and exhausted, with the few services it has remaining in year two, away goes the finishing post for year three. That is an appalling prospect to lay out for local authorities.
I strongly agree with the comment made by the hon. Member for Copeland. In such a case, how can we honestly go on talking about local government? The word "government" implies that someone is in charge at the local level making judgments about the quality of services needed, the spending of resources and the level of taxation. In a rate-capped authority all those decisions will have been taken away for not just one year—that was bad enough—but for a period of years.
The Secretary of State appalled me with his suggestion—in an almost throwaway remark—that one should be fairer to those authorities being capped for the second or third year than to those being capped for the first year. I thought that the purpose of rate capping was to ensure that an example was made of a limited number of authorities so that other authorities would see the error of their ways and not go down the same road. This afternoon, the Secretary of State appeared to suggest that, even when some authorities were in their second or third year of rate capping, others might be coming into their first year. That

is an unpleasant scenario against the background of the limited operation which at the beginning we were told was the approach.
It is important to remember that Parliament will not be required to approve the principles used to designate authorities. It will simply be told about them as a matter of courtesy. Parliamentary approval will not be required until the very end of the whole rate-capping operation. Against the background of the increased powers given to the Secretary of State by the amendments, I find that a thoroughly unappealing prospect and I certainly cannot support it.
5 pm
Like so many other elements in the Bill and so much of the legislation of the past few years, the amendments constitute enabling legislation to give the Secretary of State for the Environment more and more freedom to do whatever he wishes in relation to what used to be freely elected local authorities. That is not what the House should be about, and I shall certainly oppose the amendments.

Mr. Tony Banks: The amendments show what a mess the Government have got into with their rate-capping policy, which itself is an inadequate substitute for the Government's failure to honour their 1979 manifesto pledge to do something about rates. Once again, the Secretary of State is giving himself the kind of powers that previous Secretaries of State only dreamed of. He is producing sets of rules that we cannot know of at this stage. We shall be told in due course what the selection process will be. I am not even confident that the same Secretary of State will be telling us about it. In view of all the mess, I suspect that the Prime Minister will take an early opportunity to award the right hon. Gentleman the Conservative party equivalent of the second ball-bearing plant at Omsk, whatever that may be in the right hon. Lady's mind—perhaps the chairmanship of the Conservative party—so I doubt whether the same right hon. Gentleman will be coming to the Dispatch Box to tell us about the secret selection process.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, when the Bill left the House of Commons an authority could be designated for selective rate limitation only in accordance with "principles" aimed at establishing that the authority's spending was
excessive having regard to general economic conditions.
Two points arise out of that. First, the Secretary of State talks about the Government's overall economic objectives, but I have no doubt that if he were ever Chancellor even greater chaos would be visited on our national finances, if his record in local government is anything to go by. In any case, the Government's general economic objectives do not bear close examination. We were told earlier that one reason for the Bill was the overspending by certain authorities, and that the case for abolition of some authorities was made out because their overspending was imperilling the Government's economic strategy. Many of us do not believe that the Government have an economic strategy, but I shall let that pass. I believe that the overspend involved for 1983–84 was about £771 million. Meanwhile, the all-party Select Committee on Defence estimates that the cost of Trident has risen by £700 million. Apparently, £700 million extra on Trident can be absorbed without imperilling the Government's economic strategy but a similar amount of extra spending on local services


somehow puts the whole economic strategy at risk. The economic argument does not bear examination. It is just another miserable excuse.
Secondly, the definition of excessive spending is in no way objectively based. The definition of expenditure on which the Secretary of State's selection of criteria will depend can itself be varied by the Secretary of State. Moreover, the criteria for what the spending ought to be will also be chosen by the Secretary of State. In other words, the Secretary of State cannot lose. As the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) said, the Secretary of State can simply keep on varying the criteria so that no authority can know with any certainty what its position will be a year later. As the Secretary of State is pressed by the Cabinet to reduce spending even further, he will simply alter the criteria so that no councillor or local authority treasurer will ever know what is going on.
The process is not just fundamentally inequitable and arbitrary. Worse still, the appearance of objectivity is given to a process which in practice will depend on one holder of public office, the Secretary of State, who will ensure that no Labour local authority can win financially. That brings me back to my accusation about the selective vindictiveness which lies at the centre of the Government's strategy for local government, which is further exemplified by their use of hit lists. I noted that at the Conservative party conference Lord Bellwin said:
Concrete overshoes are on the GLC and next year into the Thames it goes.
That typifies the gangster-like mentality of Lord Bellwin and it is thoroughly appropriate to the Government's hit list approach to local authorities. It all fits in with the Conservatives' Chicago-style mentality of firing from the hip and speaking first and thinking afterwards in relation to local government finance.
When the Bill left the House of Commons it involved 10 different sets of principles. The amendment would allow 16 different sets to be used. Moreover, there is infinite scope for variation within them, so the Secretary of State will always be in the position that he wishes and cannot be challenged in the courts or anywhere else. Whenever things look a bit dodgy he will simply alter the targets and the criteria so that the local authorities fall foul of his latest economic policy.
The arbitrary nature of the criteria is clear from many examples. I shall not go through them all, but one brings the point home especially clearly in London. Not only can the Secretary of State select Labour-controlled authorities for his hit list. He can exclude Tory authorities which for reasons of short-term political expediency he does not wish to be seen to be attacking. The City of London spends 247 per cent. above its GRE, but by using the second criterion of expenditure targets that authority will be allowed to escape.
The second example is the sordid, shoddy little manoeuvre between the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister about whether Portsmouth would be on the rate capping hit list. No one can now deny that that was connected with the Portsmouth by-election, but it did not do the Conservatives much good then and the Bill will not do them much good when they are eventually forced to take this to the ballot box. In London at the moment the Conservatives are terrified of the ballot box. If they think that this legislation will get them off the hook, they are

wrong. It is a recipe for chaos in local government finance and it alters the rules always in favour of the Secretary of State. I shall certainly vote against the amendment.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is rapidly earning himself the title of the Lenny Bruce of the Labour party, as he has a nice line in vituperative insult. But we have learnt by now not to take what he says too seriously. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will need to take some of the things that he has said more seriously in future.
The criticisms of the amendment have gone very wide of the mark. Perhaps it is tight for me to remind the House in two or three short sentences that the purpose of the legislation is to put into effect the convention that has long since governed local authority spending, namely, that the total of local authority spending should remain broadly in line with the guidelines that are sanctioned by the House of Commons.

Dr. Cunningham: Nonsense.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman says that it is nonsense, but that convention has been widely regarded and acted upon. For many years it has given local authorities little problem. They have been able to accommodate it and live within it.
We are faced with the position that a tiny minority of high-spending and extravagant authorities have made it clear that they do not regard themselves as constrained by that convention. As the sums involved run into hundreds of millions of pounds, that has necessitated—my right hon. and hon. Friends have made this clear—the imposition of stringent targets as a counteraction. That has been done in relation even to authorities that have done their very best to stay within the Government's guidelines. The Government can no longer ignore that. In those circumstances, we have had to bring forward the legislation, with its selective power of rate limitation. The power will be confined to a few high-spending and extravagant authorities in order to protect the ratepayers in those authorities from the outrageous rate increases that they have faced. That is the purpose.

Mr. Straw: rose——

Mr. Jenkin: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop the argument. No doubt he will have other opportunities to intervene.
That is the background. The group of amendments recognises that the circumstances affecting authorities in the second year and perhaps even in subsequent years of rate capping will differ from those for authorities facing rate limitation for the first time.
The hon. Member for Copeland and his hon. Friends have made great play of the fact that this will broaden the scope of selection and of my discretion as Secretary of ateState in the selection of authorities for rate limitations. But I must tell him that there is nothing in the amendment that absolves me from the jurisdiction of the courts in saying that I should exercise the powers reasonably. That is fundamental to the legislation. Whether or not the power contained in the group of amendments is used to define different criteria for selection of authorities that have been rate capped in the past, the power must be exercised reasonably. I shall remain subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and, no doubt, if I exercised those powers unreasonably the necessary legal action would be taken.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend say to what extent the selection of different criteria in different years will be affected by public sector pay settlements?

Mr. Jenkin: I cannot answer that question sensibly in that form. I can say, however, that the effect of, say, local authority pay settlements is bound to have an impact upon the spending of local authorities. It therefore behoves all those who are concerned with maintaining the level of services to make sure that resources are not swallowed up in excessive pay settlements.
I shall move on. Not only must the Secretary of State's selection be reasonable and amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts, but the ultimate orders that impose rate limits on authorities will be subject to the vote of the House. They must come before the House of Commons. Ministers will be accountable here at the Dispatch Box for the decisions that they recommend that the House shall take. The hon. Member for Copeland said that that is an insubstantial protection, but to say that is to belittle the importance of the House of Commons in the operation of this legislative power.
5.15 pm
It was said that this will give me power to distinguish, as it was put, between my friends and those who are in opposition. I flatly refute that suggestion. The power will not entitle me to twist the criteria in any way so as to keep out Conservative authorities or to rate-cap Labour authorities. There is an inconsistency in the case that was made by the hon. Members for Newham, North-West and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who charged me with chicanery over the question of Portsmouth.
Portsmouth is a Conservative-controlled authority and, as anyone who chooses to look at the records will ascertain, it has overspent on its GRE by about 38 per cent. I think that it is 5·5 per cent. over it target expenditure. If we took criteria that were less than those figures there is no power in the Bill—it would be an unreasonable use of a power if I sought to do this—for me to exclude Portsmouth from the list of authorities in those circumstances. The hon. Member for Copeland asked me this question in the last two or three days of the by-election campaign. The hon. Gentleman recognised that I was completely frank with the House on this matter. As soon as he asked me the appropriate question and stopped accusing me of doing of what I have no intention of doing, and would not have been permitted to do by the legislation, I made the position clear to him.

Dr. Cunningham: I hesitate to open old wounds but, as the right hon. Gentleman has almost done it for me, let me ask him whether his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry went to Portsmouth, where he held a press conference and denied the validity of what I had said the day before? He sought to obscure the issue.
I wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment on the matter, and he wrote back saying that, among other things—his final sentence said this—what I had written to him was rubbish. When I asked the question on the third occasion, the right hon. Gentleman had the grace to tell the House the truth. We would have asked him anyway on the Floor of the House that very day, because there were questions to the Secretary of State for the Environment. Eventually we got the truth from the right hon. Gentleman, but I remind him that it took a week and three letters.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in that respect. His first letter charged me with a degree of chicanery that was an absolute travesty. I denied that firmly and clearly. The hon. Gentleman did not ask the right question. When he recognised the constraints that would inevitably be placed on the Secretary of State by the legislation, he asked a new question and got a straight answer. I have always tried to deal with the hon. Gentleman in that way.

Dr. Cunningham: rose——

Mr. Jenkin: No, I think we must leave the matter there and move on.

Dr. Cunningham: Come on. I shall continue to seek evidence in support of what I said and did. Which Minister authorised the Conservative candidate in the Portsmouth by-election, Mr. Patrick Rock, to say that he had consulted Ministers and that there was no truth in what I had said about Portsmouth city council being on a list for designation? Which Minister authorised that statement?

Mr. Jenkin: I can say firmly that if that is a report of what Mr. Rock said, the hon. Gentleman has been misinformed or Mr. Rock was misreported. According to the information that I have, he was not so authorised. I leave it at that.
I completely deny the main burden of the complaint that has been made against the amendments by the Labour party, that in some way they will allow Ministers to distinguish between friend and foe. They will not, but will merely give the Secretary of State the flexibility to distinguish between authorities who have been capped and those who are being capped for the first time. That is necessary partly to ensure that the principles can be applied fairly, and partly, as I made clear, to make sure that the limits take account of savings already made by a capped authority so as not to impose unreasonable further constraints upon their spending. As such, I commend the amendment to the House.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 188.

Division No. 381]
[5.19 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Braine, Sir Bernard


Aitken, Jonathan
Bright, Graham


Alexander, Richard
Brinton, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Amess, David
Browne, John


Ancram, Michael
Bruinvels, Peter


Ashby, David
Bryan, Sir Paul


Aspinwall, Jack
Buck, Sir Antony


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Budgen, Nick


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Butcher, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Butler, Hon Adam


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butterfill, John


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Bellingham, Henry
Carttiss, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Cash, William


Berry, Sir Anthony
Chapman, Sydney


Best, Keith
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clegg, Sir Walter


Body, Richard
Cockeram, Eric


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Colvin, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Coombs, Simon


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Cope, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Cranborne, Viscount






Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knowles, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lang, Ian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Latham, Michael


Dover, Den
Lee, John (Pendle)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dunn, Robert
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Durant, Tony
Lester, Jim


Dykes, Hugh
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lilley, Peter


Eggar, Tim
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Evennett, David
Lord, Michael


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Luce, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Lyell, Nicholas


Farr, Sir John
McCrindle, Robert


Favell, Anthony
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Macfarlane, Neil


Fletcher, Alexander
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maclean, David John


Forman, Nigel
McQuarrie, Albert


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Madel, David


Forth, Eric
Malins, Humfrey


Fox, Marcus
Malone, Gerald


Franks, Cecil
Maples, John


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Marland, Paul


Freeman, Roger
Marlow, Antony


Galley, Roy
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mates, Michael


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Mather, Carol


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maude, Hon Francis


Goodlad, Alastair
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gow, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mellor, David


Grant, Sir Anthony
Merchant, Piers


Gregory, Conal
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Ground, Patrick
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Grylls, Michael
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moate, Roger


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Jeremy
Montgomery, Fergus


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Moore, John


Harris, David
Moynihan, Hon C.


Harvey, Robert
Neale, Gerrard


Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Neubert, Michael


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Normanton, Tom


Hawksley, Warren
Norris, Steven


Hayes, J.
Oppenheim, Philip


Hayhoe, Barney
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hayward, Robert
Ottaway, Richard


Henderson, Barry
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hickmet, Richard
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hind, Kenneth
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hirst, Michael
Pawsey, James


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Pollock, Alexander


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hooson, Tom
Powley, John


Hordern, Peter
Price, Sir David


Howard, Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Raffan, Keith


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Renton, Tim


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hunter, Andrew
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Irving, Charles
Rifkind, Malcolm


Jackson, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rost, Peter


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Ryder, Richard


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)





Shersby, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Silvester, Fred
Viggers, Peter


Sims, Roger
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Walden, George


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Speller, Tony
Watson, John


Steen, Anthony
Watts, John


Stern, Michael
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Wheeler, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Whitfield, John


Stokes, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)



Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thornton, Malcolm
Mr. John Major and Mr. Donald Thompson.


Thurnham, Peter



van Straubenzee, Sir W.





NOES


Abse, Leo
Fatchett, Derek


Alton, David
Faulds, Andrew


Anderson, Donald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Ashdown, Paddy
Fisher, Mark


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Flannery, Martin


Ashton, Joe
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Forrester, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foster, Derek


Barnett, Guy
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Barron, Kevin
Freud, Clement


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
George, Bruce


Beith, A. J.
Godman, Dr Norman


Bell, Stuart
Golding, John


Benn, Tony
Gould, Bryan


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Gourlay, Harry


Bermingham, Gerald
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Blair, Anthony
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Harman, Ms Harriet


Boyes, Roland
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Haynes, Frank


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bruce, Malcolm
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Buchan, Norman
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Ian
Howells, Geraint


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clarke, Thomas
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clay, Robert
Janner, Hon Greville


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
John, Brynmor


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Conlan, Bernard
Kennedy, Charles


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Corbett, Robin
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lambie, David


Craigen, J. M.
Leighton, Ronald


Crowther, Stan
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cunningham, Dr John
Litherland, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
McCartney, Hugh


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
McCrea, Rev William


Deakins, Eric
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dewar, Donald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dixon, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dobson, Frank
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dormand, Jack
McNamara, Kevin


Douglas, Dick
McTaggart, Robert


Duffy, A. E. P.
Madden, Max


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Marek, Dr John


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Martin, Michael


Ewing, Harry
Mason, Rt Hon Roy






Maxton, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Maynard, Miss Joan
Sheerman, Barry


Meadowcroft, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Michie, William
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mikardo, Ian
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Skinner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Nellist, David
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Soley, Clive


O'Neill, Martin
Spearing, Nigel


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Steel, Rt Hon David


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Stott, Roger


Park, George
Strang, Gavin


Parry, Robert
Straw, Jack


Patchett, Terry
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Pendry, Tom
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Penhaligon, David
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Pike, Peter
Tinn, James


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Torney, Tom


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wainwright, R.


Prescott, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Radice, Giles
Wareing, Robert


Redmond, M.
Weetch, Ken


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Welsh, Michael


Richardson, Ms Jo
White, James


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Winnick, David


Robertson, George
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rogers, Allan



Rooker, J. W.
Tellers for the Noes:


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. John McWilliam.


Rowlands, Ted

Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 3

EXPENDITURE LEVELS

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 3, line 27, leave out
for all authorities falling within that class
and insert
either for all authorities falling within that class or for all of them which respectively have and have not been designated under that section in the previous financial year.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 190.

Division No. 382]
[5.32 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Aitken, Jonathan
Bottomley, Peter


Alexander, Richard
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Amess, David
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Ancram, Michael
Braine, Sir Bernard


Ashby, David
Bright, Graham


Aspinwall, Jack
Brinton, Tim


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Browne, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bruinvels, Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bryan, Sir Paul


Batiste, Spencer
Buck, Sir Antony


Bellingham, Henry
Budgen, Nick


Bendall, Vivian
Butcher, John


Berry, Sir Anthony
Butler, Hon Adam


Best, Keith
Butterfill, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Carttiss, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cash, William


Body, Richard
Chapman, Sydney





Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jackson, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Clegg, Sir Walter
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cockeram, Eric
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Colvin, Michael
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Conway, Derek
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Coombs, Simon
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Cope, John
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Cranborne, Viscount
Key, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Knowles, Michael


Dover, Den
Lang, Ian


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Latham, Michael


Dunn, Robert
Lee, John (Pendle)


Durant, Tony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dykes, Hugh
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lester, Jim


Eggar, Tim
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lilley, Peter


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lord, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Luce, Richard


Farr, Sir John
Lyell, Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McCrindle, Robert


Fletcher, Alexander
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Fookes, Miss Janet
Macfarlane, Neil


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maclean, David John


Fox, Marcus
McQuarrie, Albert


Franks, Cecil
Madel, David


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Major, John


Freeman, Roger
Malins, Humfrey


Galley, Roy
Malone, Gerald


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maples, John


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Marland, Paul


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marlow, Antony


Goodlad, Alastair
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gow, Ian
Mates, Michael


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mather, Carol


Grant, Sir Anthony
Maude, Hon Francis


Greenway, Harry
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gregory, Conal
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Ground, Patrick
Mellor, David


Grylls, Michael
Merchant, Piers


Gummer, John Selwyn
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Moate, Roger


Harris, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Harvey, Robert
Montgomery, Fergus


Haselhurst, Alan
Moore, John


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Moyninan, Hon C.


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Neale, Gerrard


Hawksley, Warren
Nelson, Anthony


Hayes, J.
Normanton, Tom


Hayhoe, Barney
Oppenheim, Philip


Hayward, Robert
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Heddle, John
Ottaway, Richard


Henderson, Barry
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hickmet, Richard
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hind, Kenneth
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hirst, Michael
Pawsey, James


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Pollock, Alexander


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hooson, Tom
Powley, John


Hordern, Peter
Price, Sir David


Howard, Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Raffan, Keith


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Renton, Tim


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hunter, Andrew
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Irving, Charles
Rifkind, Malcolm






Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thornton, Malcolm


Rost, Peter
Thurnham, Peter


Ryder, Richard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walden, George


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Shersby, Michael
Watson, John


Silvester, Fred
Watts, John


Sims, Roger
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wheeler, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Whitfield, John


Speller, Tony
Wiggin, Jerry


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas


Stern, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stokes, John



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Archie Hamilton and Mr. Michael Neubert.


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Douglas, Dick


Alton, David
Duffy, A. E. P.


Anderson, Donald
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Eastham, Ken


Ashdown, Paddy
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ewing, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Fatchett, Derek


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Faulds, Andrew


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barnett, Guy
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Barron, Kevin
Fisher, Mark


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Flannery, Martin


Beith, A. J.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bell, Stuart
Forrester, John


Benn, Tony
Foster, Derek


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Bermingham, Gerald
Freud, Clement


Blair, Anthony
George, Bruce


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Godman, Dr Norman


Boyes, Roland
Golding, John


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Gould, Bryan


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Gourlay, Harry


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Bruce, Malcolm
Harman, Ms Harriet


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Campbell, Ian
Haynes, Frank


Canavan, Dennis
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Heffer, Eric S.


Cartwright, John
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Clarke, Thomas
Home Robertson, John


Clay, Robert
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howells, Geraint


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Janner, Hon Greville


Corbett, Robin
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Corbyn, Jeremy
John, Brynmor


Craigen, J. M.
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Crowther, Stan
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kennedy, Charles


Cunningham, Dr John
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lambie, David


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Leighton, Ronald


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Dewar, Donald
Litherland, Robert


Dixon, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dobson, Frank
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dormand, Jack
McCartney, Hugh





McCrea, Rev William
Robertson, George


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Rogers, Allan


McKelvey, William
Rooker, J. W.


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


McNamara, Kevin
Rowlands, Ted


McTaggart, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Madden, Max
Sheerman, Barry


Marek, Dr John
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Martin, Michael
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Maxton, John
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Maynard, Miss Joan
Skinner, Dennis


Meadowcroft, Michael
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Michie, William
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Mikardo, Ian
Soley, Clive


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Spearing, Nigel


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Steel, Rt Hon David


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Strang, Gavin


Nellist, David
Straw, Jack


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


O'Neill, Martin
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Park, George
Tinn, James


Parry, Robert
Torney, Tom


Patchett, Terry
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Pavitt, Laurie
Wareing, Robert


Pendry, Tom
Weetch, Ken


Penhaligon, David
Welsh, Michael


Pike, Peter
White, James


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Wigley, Dafydd


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Prescott, John
Winnick, David


Radice, Giles
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Redmond, M.
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)



Richardson, Ms Jo
Tellers for the Noes:


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. John McWilliam.


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 4, line 18, at end insert—
( ) The Secretary of State's decision under subsectio (5) and any requirements imposed by him under subsection (6) above shall be stated in a notice served by him on the authority concerned.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Straw: I beg to move amendment (a), as an amendment to the Lords amendment, at end add
'and a copy of such notice shall be laid in the form of a report before the House of Commons within 28 days of such service on the authority as aforesaid.'.
The Government's majority of only 54 on the previous vote was one of the smallest that has occurred in this Parliament. It shows that support for the Government is withering away, not just daily but hourly. The voting was 243 to 188—a majority of 55—at 5 o'clock, and now the majority is down to 54. No doubt with the skill of the speaking Whip, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the majority will be smaller after the next vote.
Amendment (a) raises an important issue about the role of the House and the possibility of the House checking the arbitrary abuse of power by the Secretary of State.
Under the Bill as drafted and sent to the other place by this House, it is open to an authority that has been designated for rate capping to seek a derogation from rate capping by the Secretary of State. I shall wait a second, because I know that the Minister needs to be present to


reply to the debate. I am sure that he would not wish the Front Bench to be taken over by the alliance. That has brought him back quickly.
The derogation procedure, however, is oppressive on the authorities that seek it because the Secretary of State might not impose a lower expenditure limit than the one he orginally set. Where the Secretary of State imposes a higher limit, he is given wide and unfettered powers to control the financial and other management of the authority involved.
I shall read clause 3(6) which is the relevant subsection:
Where under subsection (5) above the Secretary of State re-determines a level at a greater amount he may impose on the authority in question such requirements relating to its expenditure or financial management as he thinks appropriate; and it shall be the duty of the authority to comply with any such requirements and to report to the Secretary of State whenever he so directs on the extent to which those requirements have been complied with.
We debated this subject at great length. These powers provide the Secretary of State with perhaps the greatest potential for controlling individual local authorities ever taken by a Secretary of State in any legislation.
If an authority is foolish enough to seek a derogation from the Secretary of State, then merely by increasing its expenditure limits by one or two pounds he would take control of that authority and could regulate not just the finance committee which determines the overall expenditure level, but every committee that makes decisions about the level of services. The Under-Secretary shakes his head, but that is what the clause means. It is what the Secretary of State intends, unless the Under-Secretary disabuses me. I went into print over this in the Municipal Journal because authorities could place themselves in even greater jeopardy of direct control over their services, expenditure or financial management. I suggested that authorities would be extremely unwise ever to seek derogation unless, as I said, the Secretary of State gives the clearest advance commitments about the way in which he intends to use the powers and says that he would not use them to seek to control an authority that was going to be rate capped.
These powers give the Secretary of State the opportunity to make different decisions for different authorities. An authority such as Portsmouth could be caught inadvertently as a result of the measures that the Secretary of State was using to ensure that Sheffield was in the frame for rate capping, which is the whole purpose of the Bill. We know that the political considerations are that crude. We know that it is a stitch-up. We know that a fine intellectual arrangement to control overall Government expenditure was not the genesis of the Bill. If that were the case, authorities spending less than £10 million would be included in the scheme.
The Bill is simply a crude, politically motivated and selectively vindictive attempt to control a few Labour authorities which have a mandate from their own people but happen to cause discomfort to the Government and particularly to the authoritarian tendencies of the Prime Minister. We know what lies behind the scheme. That is why we are deeply suspicious of the powers that the Secretary of State is taking under it. We also know that if Portsmouth or any other Tory authority was included in the list of rate-capped authorities so that another Labour authority which the Government wished to fix in the

frame, such as Sheffield, could also be included, the Secretary of State would invite Portsmouth to seek derogation and would no doubt, on the flimsiest of grounds and undertakings, exempt that authority because it was under Conservative control.
That is the reality. Cerk-Anly a Conservative authority would not worry in the least about seeking derogation from the Secretary of State. It would be given a nod and a wink. It would be given to understand that if it made a few minor undertakings it would be exempted from the impact of the Rates Bill. By the same token, it would be an unwise Labour authority which sought derogation because of the much greater risks which would flow from derogation by a Secretary of State opposed to(that authority.
In the other place, the Government, by Lords amendment No. 7, stipulated that any requirements imposed on an authority relating to its expenditure or financial management should be served in a notice by the Secretary of State on the authority concerned, so that there could be no dubiety about the nature of the requirements. Given the scheme of the Bill, that is the correct thing to do, but it is important that, as amendment (a) provides, the details of that notice should be laid before the House
within 28 days of such service on the authority".
An amendment to that effect was moved in the House of Lords on 5 June by Baroness Nicol. In reply, the Minister of State, Lord Bellwin, said that he would consider the matter and would write to the baroness. On 11 June he did so. I hate rarely read such a disingenuous piece of nonsense as that letter, although I accept that Lord Bellwin goes in for that kind of thing.
Lord Bellwin noted that Baroness Nicol had suggested that, under this procedure,
the Secretary of State could show undue favour to an authority, without Parliament being aware of what was being done.
He continued:
I am afraid that I do not accept that line of argument. Secretaries of State do not act in that way.
The present Government act in exactly that way. They have tried to discriminate in an outrageous way against the GLC by fixing special targets much more onerous than those fixed for any other authority. They have discriminated against the metropolitan counties. They have sought to help their friends—sometimes with success and sometimes without. Indeed, they have promised to help their friends. No Government have ever been more partisan than the present Government. No Government have been less willing to follow the true rule of law and to be fair to their friends and adversaries alike. They are fully intent on showing undue favour to their friends.
It is therefore important, not necessarily that Parliament should have power to debate the derogations—that is not what we seek—but that Parliament should be told the nature of the derogations and have the opportunity to hold the Secretary of State to account if it deems that such action is necessary.
If the Secretary of State says that we are fretting about nothing, I have to remind him of the experience in Scotland, where there have been similar developments. Initially, five authorities were designated in 1983 by the Secretary of State for Scotland for the equivalent of rate capping. Then, hey presto! As a result of representations, the authority that had exceeded the expenditure guidelines by the greatest amount—not the authority that was nearest to the guidelines—was suddenly removed from


the list of authorities that were to be controlled by the Secretary of State. There is a wry smile on the Parliamentary Under-Secretary's face. The authority concerned was Shetland, and it would have been deeply embarrassing for the Government if Shetland had dug its heels in over rate capping, because of the power that Shetland council exercises over oil development.
The Government respond only to displays of power. They do not respond to reasoned arguments. The Government recognised the power in Shetland's hands and decided to concede. The authority that had exceeded the guideline by 46 per cent. was exempted altogether.
The arguments used by the Secretary of State for Scotland when the issue was debated were totally spurious. He said that the Government had come across new information. The new information was that oil development was taking place in Shetland, that Shetland had a mobile population, that there was a large amount of housing there, and so on. That information could not possibly have been new to the Secretary of State or to the Scottish Office.
It is clear that the aim of the Secretary of State for Scotland was simply to hit four Labour authorities, and that he was willing unscrupulously to exempt the Shetland authority—even though, according to the Secretary of State's own selective measurements, that authority was the worst overspender—because of the embarrassment that could have ensued. In so doing, he cleared the way so that the authorities remaining to be rate-capped were all Labour controlled.
I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will not treat us to any of the rubbish about how fair the Government will be, and how they are above the party battle. The Bill is a partisan attempt to hit democratically elected Labour authorities. It is rooted in unfairness. The derogation principles are profoundly unfair and give the Secretary of State arbitrary power. The very least that we can expect is that the Government should have the courage to tell the House on what basis they will exempt authorities from the draconian powers that the Secretary of State is given under subsequent clauses of the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The amendment under discussion will give the House only a marginally greater influence on matters which are already slipping out of the control of people who have been democratically elected and into the hands of the Government. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will accept that at this stage we can do no more than try to restrain to some degree the Secretary of State's power to make decisions and redeterminations and regularly affect the spending power of local authorities.
One of the terrifying aspects of the situation is that, whatever expenditure limits are determined, they are no more or less valid than any other set of limits that could be determined at any other time. I believe that the Secretary of State is at the moment working on later criteria. At the end of the day, Portsmouth or one or two other Tory authorities may or may not be caught by those criteria. The criteria will all be related to indices—indices of the number of the aged in the population, the length of coastline, the amount of home ownership or the amount of money that needs to be spent on the disabled. There is a wide range of criteria. All those things can be put in a package that is regarded as the most suitable for the time being, but ultimately it is a subjective package.
The Government are trying to determine what they believe are the right levels of expenditure. They will be given power to alter how those definitions are made so that if they are found unsatisfactory one year they can be different the next, and authorities that are rate capped one year will not be the next.
6 pm
Amendment (a) enables the House to have a copy of the notice that will be served on the local authority. An anomaly was spotted when the Bill went to another place. It is that, although an authority was to be told about the original determination, it was not to be informed about a redetermination. A procedure such as is laid out in amendment (a) is desirable if the House is forced by the Government's majority in terms of Members, though not in terms of popular support—their majority is distorted by the system. At least we should be able to see the cases that are difficult and are the subject of review.
The Government having rightly made a concession in another place, the Minister should say that a notice will be issued so that the local authority concerned will know where it stands if, in the light of additional factors, the amount of its rates is altered. Because the law will give the Secretary of State complete power and subjectivity in regard to how the law is employed, it is important that the House should be able to have the arguments, facts and figures on each case that is the subject of the exceptional procedure. Second determinations will be rare but when they occur we should all benefit by knowing how the Government establish rate levels. We should then be able to argue in an attempt to improve the system which, for the time being, we shall have to put up with. If that provision is extended to our having reports on other matters, so much the better.
The Government should not regard amendment (a) as providing anything other than an opportunity for the House to do its duty—to act as a watchdog on the Secretary of State and the Government. We can only perform that duty if we have information. Amendment (a) is one means of obtaining information.

Sir George Young: Lords amendment No. 7 was moved in the other place by the noble Lady Baroness Gardner of Parkes. We accepted it because it fills something of gap in the provisions of the Bill as it left this House. Lords amendment No. 7 deals with the point in rate limitation at which the Secretary of State has carefully considered an application for the redetermination of a local authority's expenditure level. It requires him to notify the authority of his decision and, if its expenditure level were increased, of any requirements he might impose on it.
I should make it clear that the Government always intended to do that but we were happy to accept the amendment to remove any uncertainty that there might have been by placing a duty on the Secretary of State to inform an authority formally of his decisions. By agreeing with their Lordships we shall ensure that, when an authority is to have a requirement placed upon it, it will receive a clear written notice of what is required. Moreover, the amendment establishes a clear end point for the procedure by which an authority may apply and have its expenditure level redetermined.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) reasserted his allegation that the whole Bill is a stitch up. He said that the Secretary of State could act arbitrarily according to political whim. He completely overlooked


what my right hon. Friend said in reply to an earlier debate to the effect that the Secretary of State is obliged to act reasonably and that, if he does not, he can be taken to the courts. That is a real sanction that Opposition Members have consistently overlooked.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) implied that the House was not democratically elected. If he looks at the report of the beginning of his speech, he will see that that is what he implied, doubtless in error. We dealt with this matter at some length in Committee and it will not surprise Opposition Members to learn that the arguments are basically the same. Amendment (a) would require the Secretary of State, after notifying the authority of his decision on an application for a redetermination, to lay a report before the House within 28 days. Conservative Members do not accept that such an amendment is necessary.
Throughout the passage of the Bill we have made it clear that expenditure levels will be only an intermediate stage in the process of rate limitation. They are a stepping stone to the setting of rate limits. They have no statutory effect once the rate limit has been settled. They will then have no further purpose. That is why we have not provided for Parliament to become deeply involved in the setting and redetermining of expenditure levels.
While any redetermination of an expenditure level by the Secretary of State might involve a departure from the original principles applied to all authorities—or at least all authorities in the same class—I cannot agree that this, of itself, means that a special degree of scrutiny is necessary.
If it is suggested that the Secretary of State might depart from the principles in a partisan way, of course I repudiate any such suggestion. The Secretary of State will be accountable to this House and in the courts for his decisions, and he must conduct himself properly. Even if, in our wildest imagination, we could conceive of special treatment being given when it was not merited by the facts that were put before the Secretary of State, such an occurrence could not be hidden for long, with or without a report.
The Secretary of State's decisions will be in the public domain, irrespective of whether they are reported in a formal document before Parliament. In the same way, if he attempted to impose unreasonable requirements on an authority in return for a redetermination at a higher level, that would soon become known.

Mr. Straw: The Minister said that the documents will be in the public domain. I therefore assume that if an hon. Member tables a question asking that the notice be printed in the Official Report, the Secretary of State would be bound to answer in full. If that is the case, why does the Minister not accept amendment (a)?

Sir George Young: Because I do not need to accept it. The information will be in the public domain. The hon. Gentleman will find that Lords Amendment No. 7 says that any decision
shall be stated in a notice served by him on the authority concerned.
Councillors in the authority concerned would have the information, and if the hon. Gentleman asked the Secretary of State to publish a letter that he had sent to an authority under clause 3 no doubt the Secretary of State

would be obliged to reply and give details of his decision. I do not think that there is much between us on this point. As the hon. Gentleman says, amendment (a) does not secure debate on the report. Dealings with the local authority should be brought to the House's attention at the appropriate stage, which is when the rate level is fixed.
In the meantime, there are executive actions which the Bill rightly leaves to the Secretary of State and the local authority concerned. The opportunity for debate and approval, or disagreement, in Parliament comes when disagreed rate limits are tabled in an order. Even if an authority had agreed a limit because it had been based on a favourable redetermination, hon. Members representing other authorities which felt that they had not been so favourably treated would surely bring the matter before the House. We have provided for an order which will have to be debated and approved at that stage. That is the guarantee that the issues will be aired properly.
The hon. Member for Blackburn referred to Scotland, where the powers are different from those that we are taking in the Bill. There is, however, a broad parallel of the principles. Some authorities may have special circumstances, but these can be taken into account only at the second stage. There is nothing capricious about that. In the case of the Shetland Islands, there were a large number of unique circumstances arising from North Sea oil which carried with them special financial consequences. I do not doubt that such factors may well be known beforehand, but in order to operate fairly we must apply principles that we would expect to give the right expenditure level across all authorities.
I hope that the House will agree with the Lords in the said amendment, and in the light of what I have said—given the small difference between us—I hope that the Opposition will not press amendment (a).

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 237.

Division No. 383]
[6.10 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Clarke, Thomas


Alton, David
Clay, Robert


Anderson, Donald
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cohen, Harry


Ashdown, Paddy
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Conlan, Bernard


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Corbett, Robin


Barnett, Guy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Craigen, J. M.


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Crowther, Stan


Beith, A. J.
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bell, Stuart
Cunningham, Dr John


Benn, Tony
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Blair, Anthony
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Boyes, Roland
Deakins, Eric


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Dewar, Donald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Dixon, Donald


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Dormand, Jack


Bruce, Malcolm
Douglas, Dick


Buchan, Norman
Duffy, A. E. P.


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Campbell, Ian
Eastham, Ken


Canavan, Dennis
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ewing, Harry


Cartwright, John
Fatchett, Derek


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Faulds, Andrew






Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Nellist, David


Fisher, Mark
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Flannery, Martin
O'Neill, Martin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Forrester, John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Foster, Derek
Park, George


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Parry, Robert


Freud, Clement
Patchett, Terry


Godman, Dr Norman
Pavitt, Laurie


Golding, John
Pendry, Tom


Gould, Bryan
Penhaligon, David


Gourlay, Harry
Pike, Peter


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Prescott, John


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Radice, Giles


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Redmond, M.


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Haynes, Frank
Richardson, Ms Jo


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Robertson, George


Home Robertson, John
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Rogers, Allan


Howells, Geraint
Rooker, J. W.


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Sheerman, Barry


John, Brynmor
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Lambie, David
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Leighton, Ronald
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Soley, Clive


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Spearing, Nigel


Litherland, Robert
Stott, Roger


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Strang, Gavin


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Straw, Jack


McCartney, Hugh
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


McCrea, Rev William
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


McKelvey, William
Tinn, James


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Torney, Tom


McNamara, Kevin
Wainwright, R.


McTaggart, Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Madden, Max
Wareing, Robert


Marek, Dr John
Weetch, Ken


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Welsh, Michael


Martin, Michael
White, James


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wigley, Dafydd


Maxton, John
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Maynard, Miss Joan
Winnick, David


Meacher, Michael
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Meadowcroft, Michael



Michie, William
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. John McWilliam.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James



Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Berry, Sir Anthony


Aitken, Jonathan
Best, Keith


Alexander, Richard
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Amess, David
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Ancram, Michael
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Tom
Body, Richard


Ashby, David
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Aspinwall, Jack
Bottomley, Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Boyson, Dr Rhode


Batiste, Spencer
Braine, Sir Bernard


Bellingham, Henry
Bright, Graham


Bendall, Vivian
Brinton, Tim





Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Browne, John
Holt, Richard


Bruinvels, Peter
Hooson, Tom


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hordern, Peter


Buck, Sir Antony
Howard, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Butcher, John
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Butler, Hon Adam
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Butterfill, John
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cash, William
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Chapman, Sydney
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Irving, Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jackson, Robert


Clegg, Sir Walter
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Cockeram, Eric
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Conway, Derek
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Coombs, Simon
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Cope, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Cranborne, Viscount
Key, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Knowles, Michael


Dover, Den
Latham, Michael


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lawrence, Ivan


Dunn, Robert
Lee, John (Pendle)


Durant, Tony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dykes, Hugh
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lester, Jim


Eggar, Tim
Lilley, Peter


Emery, Sir Peter
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lord, Michael


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Luce, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Lyell, Nicholas


Farr, Sir John
McCrindle, Robert


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Fletcher, Alexander
Macfarlane, Neil


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Forman, Nigel
Maclean, David John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McQuarrie, Albert


Fox, Marcus
Major, John


Franks, Cecil
Malins, Humfrey


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Malone, Gerald


Freeman, Roger
Maples, John


Gale, Roger
Marlow, Antony


Galley, Roy
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mates, Michael


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Mather, Carol


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodlad, Alastair
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gow, Ian
Merchant, Piers


Gower, Sir Raymond
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Grant, Sir Anthony
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Greenway, Harry
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Gregory, Conal
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Ground, Patrick
Moate, Roger


Grylls, Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Gummer, John Selwyn
Montgomery, Fergus


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Moore, John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mudd, David


Hanley, Jeremy
Neale, Gerrard


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Nelson, Anthony


Harris, David
Normanton, Tom


Harvey, Robert
Onslow, Cranley


Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Philip


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Ottaway, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hayes, J.
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hayward, Robert
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Heddle, John
Patten, John (Oxford)


Henderson, Barry
Pawsey, James


Hickmet, Richard
Powell, William (Corby)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Powley, John


Hind, Kenneth
Price, Sir David


Hirst, Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Raffan, Keith






Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Renton, Tim
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rhodes James, Robert
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thornton, Malcolm


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Thurnham, Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion
Trippier, David


Ryder, Richard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Viggers, Peter


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walden, George


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Warren, Kenneth


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Watson, John


Shersby, Michael
Watts, John


Silvester, Fred
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Sims, Roger
Whitfield, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wood, Timothy


Speller, Tony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Steen, Anthony



Stern, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Mr. Michael Neubert and Mr. Ian Lang.


Stokes, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 7 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 4, line 18, at end insert—
( ) In making a decision under subsection (5) above the Secretary of State shall have regard to the extent (if any) to which the authority's proposed expenditure is to consist of contributions to charities registered, or excepted from registration, under section 4 of the Charities Act 1960.

Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I have to inform the House that Lords amendment No. 8 involves privilege.

Sir George Young: This amendment was introduced by the Government in the other place in response to concern that local authorities which were rate capped might make disproportionate savings at the expense of voluntary bodies rather than their own organisations. The amendment has been welcomed by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations.
I wish to make it clear that the Government do not accept that local authorities will in fact behave in the way which is feared. Generally they accept the real contribution which voluntary organisations can make through their cost-effective and flexible provision of essential local services. Sadly, some local authorities have gone to considerable trouble to spread alarm in an attempt to bolster opposition to the Bill.
We have had to recognise that the concern expressed by voluntary organisations is genuinely felt, and we have therefore looked for an amendment to the Bill which could reassure them by giving some recognition to their particular problem. In doing so, however, we have been anxious to avoid imposing on local authorities the priorities of the Government. Contrary to the claims which have been made throughout the passage of this Bill, it does not provide powers for the Government to intervene in the setting of local priorities. It allows only for the setting of an upper limit on the rate income of the authority. We regard it as an important principle that the local priorities

of the authority between services should remain a matter for local choice. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the extent of funding for charities in considering an application for a redetermination of an expenditure level. If an authority does not apply for a redetermination, the implication is that the authority feels that it can manage within the expenditure level that was set. Where it feels that extra expenditure is required over and above that proposed by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State will have to have regard to the funding of charities and for the purposes of doing that it will be necessary for him to make inquiries about it.
I anticipate the complaint that the amendment does not ensure the continued funding of charities by rate-capped local authorities. In my view, no amendment could achieve that—certainly not without breaching the principle, to which I have referred, that authorities must decide on their priorities for themselves. The amendment goes a long way to help those who are concerned. It establishes on the face of the Bill a clear statutory position for charitable organisations. It ensures that the Secretary of State must turn his mind to the implication of an expenditure level for the funding of charities, and it opens the possibility that a charity might write to the Secretary of State directly in support of an application by its local authority and the Secretary of State will have to have regard to that, too. There is no compulsion, of course, on an authority to apply for an redetermination, but I am sure that a local charity faced with a reduction in its funding will be in a much stronger position, as a result of this amendment, to press the authority to make an application for a redetermination and that, too, must be a positive benefit to them.
I hope that the amendment will be widely welcomed by the House as it has been on all sides in the other place and—as I have said—by the NCVO.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I am sorry to disappoint the Under-Secretary of State, but, while we do not oppose this amendment, we do not welcome it as a way forward to safeguard the interests of charitable organisations in rate-capped authorities. The Minister failed to mention, when he spoke of this amendment being introduced in the other place, that it was the consequence of an amendment tabled by Lady Faithful, which, if it had been passed, would have properly protected charities. We believe that if it had been pushed to a Division, that amendment would probably have been carried in the other place. Lord Bellwin, in the light of this amendment and the possibility of its being carried, undertook to come up with something, and this is the best that the Government can have come up with. It does not safeguard the position of charitable organisations or voluntary bodies of charitable status that have to exist within rate-capped authorities.
There are two major things wrong with this amendment. First, it operates only subsequent on an authority applying for redetermination of its expenditure limit. This means that, if an authority is rate capped and given an expenditure limit, the authority has to make an application for the redetermination on special grounds, and put in some special pleading. Then, through this amendment, the Secretary of State will consider the position of charities within that local authority area.
However, as right hon. and hon. Members have already said in previous debates, few local authorities are likely to make an application to the Government for this


redetermination, and are not likely to make a case for special pleading. If they do so, the Government can take upon themselves even greater power to interfere with a local authority, and the local authority concerned has to accept the Government's findings. The local authority can be told, sector by sector and service by service, exactly what should happen, and this can include policy direction from central Government.
For example, if Merseyside county council were rate capped and then applied for a redetermination along the lines set out in the Bill, that would involve a policy decision by the Secretary of State that would cause a large fare increase in that area. That would be unacceptable not only to the county council but to the people of Merseyside. In other words, this amendment is asking local authorities to sacrifice themselves and their policies for the sake of the charities and voluntary organisations with charitable status within their area. That is not likely to happen. Even the most altruistic local authority is not likely to be tempted, even if it has a regard to charities.
The second thing that is wrong with the amendment is that it requires the Secretary of State only to "have regard to" the expenditure on charities. It does not require him to do anything particularly concrete or practical. It does not lay any real duties or responsibilities on the Secretary of State to protect charities or voluntary organisations with charitable status within the area of a rate-capped authority. The amendment is merely a sop. It is typical of the way in which this Government approach charitable organisations. They did the same in their housing legislation when they rode roughshod over charities and their status.
6.30 pm
The Government are inclined to support charities when it suits them. They use them to attack the Health Service by the back door because of their doctrinaire distaste of the Health Service. When the crunch comes and supporting charities contravene their doctrinaire view of local authority expenditure, they are not prepared to do anything about it. The Government treat charities and other organisations with charitable status in the way that Henry VIII treated most of his wives. While making love to them, he was preparing and erecting their scaffold. That is exactly what the Government are doing. They support charities with their words while introducing rate-capping legislation which will destroy many voluntary organisations and their programmes.
This is not a minor issue. Many voluntary organisations and charities act on behalf of the community. They defend services and ameliorate some of the cuts forced upon local authorities. We shall not divide the House on the issue because the amendment is at least a step forward and the Secretary of State has undertaken to consider, in limited circumstances, the effects of his actions upon charities. Certainly the anxieties of charities will not be put at rest. We do not oppose the amendment, but it does not protect charities and voluntary organisations.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I do not oppose the amendment, but I shall not be as mean about it as the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). The amendment is an example of how defective the Bill is. The Government will face a number of problems in connection with the amendment. Exceptions always produce a host of anomalies. The distinction between authorities that use charities as an agency and those that use them directly will be blurred. I think in particular of mental health services.

A number of authorities legitimately prefer to use agencies to provide accommodation. Under this provision such authorities might benefit more and perhaps avoid some of the harshest penalties of rate capping.
Exceptions from registration include housing associations. Local authorities which do a fair amount of rehabilitation work through associations might be in a better position than those which act directly. I do not accuse the Government of endeavouring to introduce privatisation or of any other ulterior motives. I believe the development of the voluntary sector to be good for the community, but anomalies are involved.
In the United Kingdom charitable status has never been conferred only by registration under an Act. Charitable status is given to those who can show that their objectives are charitable. They may apply for charitable status through registration, and registration under the Charitable Act demonstrates that they have that status, but people may obtain charitable status without being registered. Some people or organisations may not wish to register. The Government are changing the basis of charitable status by the back door. I do not know whether they realise that that is what they are doing. A charity may find itself outside the provisions of the Bill and be pressed into registering. I refer to the bodies that are limited by guarantee and do a certain amount of non-charitable work but for grant aid purposes do work which is charitable. For that they can claim tax relief. Such a body is not registered. The Government are producing a host of extra problems for themselves which they will rue.
The danger is that the provision will skew the whole local expenditure issue and may promote a move towards putting on to the voluntary sector expenditure with which it cannot cope. Many charities try to do work beyond their capacity. There is a danger in allowing a loophole.
The amendment represents a minor gain. It is not a conversion on the road to Damascus, but any Minister who hesitates on the way there is to be commended. For that reason we shall not divide the House.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 8

INFORMATION

Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 7, line 34, at end insert—
( ) For the purpose of enabling him to prescribe a maximum for a precept under this Part of this Act the Secretary of State may require each rating authority to which the precept can be issued to furnish him with an estimate of the amount, calculated in the manner prescribed under the General Rate Act 1967, which would be produced in the year in question by a rate of a new penny in the pound levied in its area or any part of it; and if any such estimate is not furnished within such time as the Secretary of State may require he may himself make the estimate for that purpose.

Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a technical amendment concerned with the calculation of present limits of designated precepting authorities.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 10

AUTHORITIES SUBJECT TO GENERAL CONTROL

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 8, line 14, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert "subsections (1A) and (2)"

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 11, in page 8, line 18, at end insert—
(1A) If in any financial year it appears to the Secretary of State from the best information available to him that an authority—
(a) has in each of the three preceding financial years complied with subsection (1B) below and is likely to comply with that subsection in that financial year; or
(b) has in each of the three preceding financial years complied with subsection (1C) below and is likely to comply with that subsection in that financial year,
he shall be a notice in writing served on that authority exempt it from the operation of subsection (1) above in relation to the next financial year.
(1B) An authority complies with this subsection in a financial year if it has not been designated in relation to that year under section 2 above and its total expenditure in that year does not exceed its grant-related expenditure for that year.
(1C) An authority complies with this subsection in a financial year if it has not been designated in relation to that year under section 2 above and complies in that year with guidance issued to it for the purposes of section 59(6)(cc) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.
and the following amendments thereto:
(a) leave out subsections (a) and (b) and insert
'has in each of the two preceding financial years complied with either subsection (1B) or subsection (1C) below and is likely to comply with either of those subsections in that financial year.'.
(b) in subsection (a) leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.
(c) in subsection (b) leave out 'three' and insert 'two'. Lords amendment No. 12.

Mr. Jenkin: This group of amendments results from undertakings that I gave on Report in response to an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and supported by a number of my hon. Friends. The purpose of the amendment is to provide for the exclusion from the general rate limitation scheme of authorities that have an established record of responsible self-restraint in their spending.
It has been said that it is paradoxical to propose exclusions from the operation of the general limitation scheme when the scheme is intended to apply to all authorities. I do not think that there is anything paradoxical about the proposition when one bears in mind the Bill's purposes. The Bill has two purposes—to protect ratepayers and to safeguard the Government's expenditure plans. I have said on many occasions that we envisage general rate limitation being brought into effect only where there is evidence of a significantly large number of local authorities starting to increase their spending and their rates in an unacceptable way.
Authorities that have an established record of low, responsible spending will not, almost by definition, impose excessive burdens on their ratepayers. They will not contribute to any general overspending which might lead to the introduction of a general rate limitation. When this matter was considered in the House before, the feeling was that it would be wrong—indeed pointless—to seek to impose rate limits on authorities that could demonstrate that they had, by their own efforts, maintained responsible spending levels.
This group of amendments, therefore, provides for authorities to be excluded from the operation of the general limitation scheme—if ever it were introduced—by reference to one or other of two alternative tests. They will be excluded either if they have spent at or below their expenditure targets in each of the previous three years, and are budgeting on that basis in the year in which the question of exemption falls to be determined; or if they have spent at or below GRE over the same period and in the year in question.
It is impossible to say how many authorities might, in the event, benefit from this concession. Presently we have only the evidence of past performance, and there is no way in which we can foretell what the position might be if and when we came to introduce the general limitation arrangements. However, on the evidence about expenditure in the years from 1981–82 to 1983–84, and from the provisional figures from 1984–85 budgets, it seems that a total of 220 authorities in England and 21 in Wales might have benefited from this exclusion had we to decide the matter today.
Therefore, the amendment represents a substantial modification to the proposals as they were originally put before the House. I know that a number of my hon. Friends felt that the Bill would be infinitely more acceptable if this exclusion was included, and no doubt they will welcome this group of amendments from another place.

Mr. Straw: I wish to speak to amendments (a), (b) and (c) to Lords amendment No. 11.
As the Secretary of State said, Lords amendment No. 11 fulfils undertakings given to his hon. Friends on Report. We shall not vote against the amendment because it makes some progress, as far as it goes. However, the more that the general scheme is restricted, the thinner is the argument for the Bill, which is that it is necessary on macro-economic grounds to hold down total public expenditure. With the exclusion contained in part I, there is no way that the Bill can now be a vehicle to bring down the totality of local government expenditure by the £1,500 million that it has overshot the PESC White Paper——

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is making a charge based on something that we have never said. I specifically said many times in Committee that it was not our intention to use the Bill to claw back that expenditure.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for repeating that, but he has advanced two arguments in support of the Bill. One was that the local ratepayers needed to be protected—even if the local ratepayer has expressed, through the ballot box, a clear wish not to be protected by the Secretary of State. The second argument, which the right hon. Gentleman advanced with considerable force, was that the Bill simply put into practice what he saw as a long-standing convention—that local authorities should comply with the public expenditure plans of central Government. The Bill, as drafted, is not a vehicle to put into practice the Government's plans.
The more conditions put into the Bill—and we welcome anything that restricts the Secretary of State's arbitrary powers—the more transparent becomes its purpose, which is simply to have a go at a number of authorities that happen to be Labour controlled. Lord Bellwin let the cat out of the bag when he said that
a number of Labour councils are being taken over today by Marxist extremists."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 May 1984; Vol. 451, c. 844.]


What utter nonsense. Labour authorities have been recently elected to preserve the jobs and services in their areas. On the whole, they have a more recent mandate than the Government. All that the Government can do in response is not to recognise the scale of the social and economic problems with which those Labour authorities are grappling. Instead, they resort to the crudest, vilest abuse of those authorities, their ratepayers and the voters who elected the authorities.
Our amendments seek to extend the restriction on the introduction of a general limitation of rates and precepts. They make the criterion of a three-year rather than a four-year compliance with either GRE or target, or a three-year run of target compliance and/or a three-year GRE compliance. Therefore, if an authority has in one year reached GRE and in another year reached target, but not necessarily both, it will be exempted from the scope of a general power of limitation imposed by part II.
I recollect that an amendment was tabled by Conservative Members on Report and withdrawn on the basis that the Secretary of State would introduce a similar amendment in another place. I believe that the amendment referred to a three-year run of compliance and not to a four-year run. The Secretary of State is nodding. Will he now explain why he has found it necessary to push for four years? In local authority terms, three years is a long time for compliance—especially with measures so difficult to comply with, as many authorities, both Conservative and Labour, have discovered.
I do not understand how the Secretary of State could accuse an authority of overspending in his terms when, in any year, that authority has either made GRE or its target. The fact that GRE and the target may not be the same is not the fault of the authority; it is a consequence of two sets of Government measures. GRE is plainly a measure of need, and if an authority is spending less than its GRE I cannot see how anybody, even the Government, could contend that that was overspending.
The target is the expenditure level that the Secretary of State thinks is appropriate, even where it is above or below GRE. If the target is above GRE, that is a statement by the Government that they accept that and will not penalise the authority by holding back on grant. The fact that there is a difference in the two measures arises from the different methodology. Why should an authority be penalised because of the capricious nature and accidental result of that methodology?
Some of our amendments may be destructive of the main purpose of the Bill, and we accept that. However, they are fully consistent with the spirit of the amendment that the Secretary of State accepted, in principle, on Report. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accepting our amendments.

Mr. Meadowcroft: My noble Friend Lord Evans of Claughton commented that when this amendment was moved in the other place there were sighs of relief from the Government Benches. I suppose that one should congratulate the Government draftsmen on their immense resourcefulness in having been able to produce a form of words which bought off quite a section of the opposition to part II of the Bill.
The whole thing could, nevertheless, still be extremely capricious. The problem is that the GREs and targets are themselves determined by Government. The danger is that, having fixed the goal posts and having found

authorities that could score, it is always possible to shift the goal posts again. Bearing in mind the wording of the amendment, the targets and the GREs in question, it is strange that Portsmouth was not exempted from the restrictions involved.
The variables involved in local government and the different problems faced by authorities—be they the problems of demography, urban renewal or transportation—are, by multiplying them together, infinite. There is no way in which any imposed targets or levels of expenditure can be mathematically sound or politically enforceable in logic. Nevertheless, anything which ameliorates the Bill is to be welcomed, and for that reason we shall not oppose the amendment.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said about the number of years involved. If part II of the Bill is to be imposed at some future date—which may not be that far off, if the Secretary of State has his way—it is conceivable that the three-year period will be the only period which will suffice to give local authorities a target to aim at as of now. If the right hon. Gentleman extended it to four, he would be going back in time to such an extent that it would have been monstrously unfair for local authorities not to have been aware that they might have these restrictions imposed on them.
It seems logical, therefore, to accept the shorter period—which, I gather, the right hon. Gentleman originally had in mind—and not seek to impose the longer period, which could act retrospectively to such a degree as to be unfair even to those authorities which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to exempt. For those reasons, we shall support the amendment to the Lords amendment.

Mr. Chris Smith: I welcome the Lords amendment and more vigorously welcome the amendments to it moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) because anything that removes any local authority or group of local authorities from the provisions of the Bill and from its punitive aspects is to be welcomed. The sad fact that the local authorities that cover my constituency are not covered by these exclusion provisions is regrettable. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that other luckier, local authorities are covered.
There is a profound illogicality to the Government's case. The whole raison d'etre of the Bill is a selective scheme that the Government intend to use against what they call high-spending local authorities, and behind that, backing it up, is a general scheme that they originally intended to apply to all local authorities throughout the country.
The reasons that the Government have consistently advanced for having that general scheme in the first place are twofold. The first is the strange argument about the possibility of 80 or 100, or perhaps even more, local authorities being supposedly captured by wild-eyed extremists dedicated to passionate programmes of public spending. The Government thought that they needed the general scheme to capture those local authorities.
That argument totally ignored the point, consistently made by my hon. Friends, that if that was really what the Government were worried about, they should have considered using the selective scheme on those authorities as well as on the 16 or 20 which they perhaps have in mind at the moment for the selective scheme.
The second point that the Government consistently made was that they were worried about the overall level


of local government spending across the country and that, because of that, and because of the potential need to get that overall spending level down, they were reserving unto themselves the possibility of using the general powers.
However, the Government are now removing the concept of the general scheme in its entirety. They are simply putting into the Bill a back-up selective scheme to use as a base beyond the initial selective scheme, which they will consider bringing into operation if they do not get a sufficient reduction in what they call public expenditure by the use of the original scheme.
Therefore, the whole concept of part II of the Bill has been destroyed by the Government. That must be accepted because, by bringing forward this amendment in the Lords, the Government defeated the arguments that they used in the first place for having the general scheme in the Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State will have the honesty to admit that. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also explain why, if that is the case, they are not intending simply to have the selective scheme, pure and simple, in the Bill, and—being absolutely honest about their intentions—saying that they will use the selective scheme more widely than they initially promised they would. That is, in effect, what will happen.
I have often said that the selective scheme is anathema to me, and that remains the case. But in welcoming what the Lords have done, and in saying in support of our amendments to the amendment that they should have gone further and excluded more local authorities, I hope that the Government will have the honesty to admit that they have abandoned altogether the idea of a general scheme applying across local authorities, and that they will be open and honest to the House about the extremely selective nature of the operation on which they are now embarked.

Sir Peter Emery: I apologise for not having heard the totality of the debate on the amendment. I have been at work in a Select Committee.
The House may recall that on 28 March last a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends tabled an amendment on Report which we believed enhanced part of the general principles of Conservative philosophy for the administration of local government. Our view was that while it might be excellent to accept assurances from Ministers about the law, because Ministers came and went, certain absolute assurances were better written into the legislation.
We were assured that part II of the Bill would not be applied to local authorities of any political nature which had, on the whole, co-operated with the Government and were following their guidelines. We felt that that assurance should be enshrined in the legislation. Although the amendment was not reached, I am pleased to say that it was possible to arrange a debate in which my right hon. Friend was able to give certain assurances that tied in with the concept that local authorities that co-operated with Government policy and controlled their expenditure would not be rate capped.
7 pm
It was with great interest that I read the amendments tabled in another place. I thank my right hon. Friend for carrying through his assurances by setting them out in the Bill. I am told that thanks to the Department of the Environment are not quite as common these days as they might be and I underline the fact that my right hon. Friend

has complied with his undertaking and has gone further by examining more closely the amendment that was tabled by myself and others on Report. That amendment confined itself to dealing with the problem of local authorities that complied with the targets because we saw difficulties in dealing with those that had complied with GRE. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being able to accept the argument that authorities that comply with GRE as well as those that comply with targets should not be rate capped. That is the essence of the amendment.
The amendment that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I tabled on Report suggested that the record of compliance should be over two years. My right hon. Friend has seen fit to make it three years rather than two. Will he explain why he feels that that is necessary? I am certain that there must be a specific reason. With that sole query, I do no more than say that I think that the amendments tabled in another place will greatly improve the Bill.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be able to tell the House how many local authorities will be automatically excluded from rate capping as a result of the amendments. I estimated, before the amendments from another place had been tabled, that over 50 per cent. of all local authorities in England and Wales would be excluded and that the percentage was likely to rise within a year to about 85 per cent. How many authorities does my right hon. Friend think will now be excluded? It is important that local authorities should know because it is their objections that have created so much opposition to the Bill. It is extremely important that they should know that they will not be affected by the Bill.
Finally, it gives me great pleasure to know that the Government have been able to meet the assurances that my right hon. Friend gave to the House at an earlier stage.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to intervene.
I much appreciate the kind words of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). I said while he was engaged in Select Committee business that the amendment owed itself to the efforts that he and some of his right hon. and hon. Friends made on Report when they sought to write into the Bill a provision which is contained in the White Paper to the effect that, if the general scheme ever had to be introduced, levels would be set in such a way that authorities could generally be expected to contain their expenditure within them. We explained that that meant that the level of the general scheme would be such that authorities which were spending reasonably would not find it difficult to comply with the scheme. My hon. Friend felt that that explanation should not rest on a ministerial statement and should be embodied in the Bill and set out clearly so that the authorities would know where they stood. The amendments before us are the answer to my hon. Friend's argument.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said that if the amendments were agreed to it would change the nature of the scheme. The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong. Paragraph 4.5 of the White Paper makes it clear that we did not envisage in the general scheme putting any severe constraint upon the spending of responsible local authorities. We envisaged that levels would be set with which they would not find


it difficult to comply. The scheme recognises what we envisaged and removes reasonable spending authorities from its framework.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton asked how many local authorities would be taken out of the scheme. This has to be determined on the past three years of spending and this year's budgets and the result might be quite different from the circumstances which would apply if the general scheme had to be introduced. On the basis of 1981–82 and 1983–84 spending and the 1984–85 budgets, it seems that 220 English authorities and 21 Welsh authorities will be excluded. That will be more than half of all English and Welsh authorities. That is a measure of the value of the amendment.
I should have liked very much to accept the amendment which was introduced by my hon. Friend and his right hon. and hon. Friends on Report. He proposed a linkage to authorities' final accounts, but as they would not be known for a couple of years the amendment was not practicable. I am grateful to him for acknowledging the value of the amendment which is before us. We have gone further in one important respect than his amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) argued that we should take account of spending below GRE as well as spending below target, and that is what we have done.
The Opposition wish to extend the benefit of the exemption in two ways. First, they wish to allow authorities to swap between meeting their target and their GRE from year to year rather than establishing a consistent record of spending, as set against one of those measures, for the full period. Secondly, they propose that the relevant period should be reduced from three years to two years plus the current year.
I cannot accept either proposition. Our objective is to exclude from the general scheme authorities which have a consistent record of responsible spending. It does not seem satisfactory to propose that an authority which has taken advantage of the differences between GRE and target and has chosen the most advantageous spending figures in each year should thereby be excluded.
The Government are offering a considerable concession, as my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has recognised, when it is set against the original proposition that all authorities should be within rate limitation. That is what was proposed in the Conservative party's manifesto. It is right that we should set a high standard for those who wish to be excluded. The amendments represent a considerable concession to local government and ratepayers are entitled to be assured that they will not be denied the protection of rate limitation unless the Government are sure that that protection is not necessary.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton reminded us, he proposed that spending should be considered over two years. He considered that that would be sufficient. We

have carefully considered the length of the period to apply. We have come to the conclusion that three years is the minimum acceptable period, for a number of reasons. First, we want to feel sure that an exclusion from general rate limitation will not remove protection from ratepayers in an area where they are entitled to expect protection. That means that we must set a test of consistency in low spending. Against that background, we must be realistic in recognising—we saw this last year and this year—that in the short term it is possible for an authority to manipulate its accounts and to present its expenditure as being lower than it really is. An authority cannot do so over a prolonged period, because eventually events catch up with it, but it can do so over a short period. We must take account of that fact. Secondly, significant changes in an authority's spending behaviour may occur, for instance, if there is a change in its political control. We must recognise those facts in considering the appropriate period.
I do not believe that the criteria proposed in the amendments moved in the other place are excessively restrictive. As I have said, more than half of all authorities presently meet those criteria. Now that those criteria are established—this point was made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft)—all authorities will know what the criteria are. I should not expect general rate limitation to be introduced in the next two or three years. We must first give the selective scheme time to work properly. We shall not have any element of retrospection in that period. From the moment the amendment was tabled in another place all authorities knew precisely what they needed to do to be excluded should the general scheme ever have to be introduced.
I cannot, therefore, accept the amendment. I hope that I have satisfactorily answered the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. I hope that the House will accept the amendments in the form in which they have been returned to us from another place.

Mr. Straw: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond.
We have listened carefully to the Secretary of State. His argument that it is wrong to leave authorities to choose between achieving a target or GRE is unacceptable. Target and GRE are measures of the Government's spending. It can hardly lie in the Government's mouth to criticise and condemn an authority for overspending when that authority has met either its target or GRE. It is not the fault of the authorities concerned that the methodology of GRE and target varies from year to year. The possibility, therefore, of an authority coming within a target or GRE will vary.
The right hon. Gentleman's explanation is unacceptable and we shall, therefore, press amendment (b) to a Division.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 8, line 18, at end
insert—
(1A) If in any financial year it appears to the Secretary of State from the best information available to him that an authority—
(a) has in each of the three preceding financial years complied with subsection (1B) below and is likely to comply with that subsection in that financial year; or
(b) has in each of the three preceding financial years complied with subsection (1C) below and is likely to comply with that subsection in that financial year,
he shall by a notice in writing served on that authority exempt it from the operation of subsection (1) above in relation to the next financial year.
(1B) An authority complies with this subsection in a financial year if it has not been designated in relation to that year under section 2 above and its total expenditure in that year does not exceed its grant-related expenditure for that year.
(1C) An authority complies with this subsection in a financial year if it has not been designated in relation to that year under section 2 above and complies in that year with guidance issued to it for the purposes of section 59(6)(cc) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that amendment No. 11 involves privilege.

Amendment (b) proposed to the Lords amendment, line 6, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.—[Mr. Straw.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 204.

Division No. 384]
[7.13 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Cunningham, Dr John


Alton, David
Dalyell, Tam


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Ashdown, Paddy
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Deakins, Eric


Ashton, Joe
Dewar, Donald


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Dixon, Donald


Barron, Kevin
Dobson, Frank


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Dormand, Jack


Beggs, Roy
Douglas, Dick


Beith, A. J.
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bell, Stuart
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Benn, Tony
Eastham, Ken


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Ewing, Harry


Blair, Anthony
Fatchett, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Forrester, John


Bruce, Malcolm
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Buchan, Norman
Foster, Derek


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Campbell, Ian
George, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Godman, Dr Norman


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Golding, John


Cartwright, John
Gould, Bryan


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Gourlay, Harry


Clarke, Thomas
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Clay, Robert
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Cohen, Harry
Harman, Ms Harriet


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Conlan, Bernard
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Corbett, Robin
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Craigen, J. M.
Howells, Geraint


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)





Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Pendry, Tom


John, Brynmor
Penhaligon, David


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Pike, Peter


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Radice, Giles


Kirkwood, Archy
Redmond, M.


Lambie, David
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Lamond, James
Richardson, Ms Jo


Leighton, Ronald
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robertson, George


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Litherland, Robert
Rogers, Allan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rooker, J. W.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


McCartney, Hugh
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


McCrea, Rev William
Rowlands, Ted


McCusker, Harold
Sedgemore, Brian


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sheerman, Barry


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McKelvey, William
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McNamara, Kevin
Short, Mrs R. (W'hampt'n NE)


McTaggart, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Maginnis, Ken
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Marek, Dr John
Soley, Clive


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spearing, Nigel


Martin, Michael
Stott, Roger


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Strang, Gavin


Maxton, John
Straw, Jack


Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Meacher, Michael
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Meadowcroft, Michael
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Michie, William
Tinn, James


Mikardo, Ian
Torney, Tom


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wainwright, R.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wareing, Robert


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Weetch, Ken


Nellist, David
Welsh, Michael


Nicholson, J.
White, James


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wigley, Dafydd


O'Brien, William
Williams, Rt Hon A.


O'Neill, Martin
Winnick, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David



Park, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Parry, Robert
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. John Home Robertson.


Patchett, Terry



Pavitt, Laurie







NOES


Adley, Robert
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Aitken, Jonathan
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Fallon, Michael


Amess, David
Farr, Sir John


Ancram, Michael
Favell, Anthony


Arnold, Tom
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Ashby, David
Fletcher, Alexander


Aspinwall, Jack
Fookes, Miss Janet


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Forman, Nigel


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Marcus


Bellingham, Henry
Franks, Cecil


Bendall, Vivian
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Freeman, Roger


Best, Keith
Galley, Roy


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Body, Richard
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bottomley, Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Greenway, Harry


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Gregory, Conal


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Ground, Patrick


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grylls, Michael


Bright, Graham
Gummer, John Selwyn


Brinton, Tim
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Browne, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bruinvels, Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Buck, Sir Antony
Harris, David


Butterfill, John
Harvey, Robert


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carttiss, Michael
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Cash, William
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Chapman, Sydney
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayward, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Henderson, Barry


Clegg, Sir Walter
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cockeram, Eric
Hirst, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Conway, Derek
Holt, Richard


Coombs, Simon
Hooson, Tom


Cope, John
Hordern, Peter


Cranborne, Viscount
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Crouch, David
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dover, Den
Hunter, Andrew


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dunn, Robert
Irving, Charles


Durant, Tony
Jackson, Robert


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Eggar, Tim
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Emery, Sir Peter
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Evennett, David
Jones, Robert (W Herts)





Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, John (Oxford)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pawsey, James


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Powell, William (Corby)


Key, Robert
Powley, John


Kirkwood, Archy
Price, Sir David


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Proctor, K Harvey


Knowles, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Lawrence, Ivan
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Renton, Tim


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rhodes James, Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lester, Jim
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lilley, Peter
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Rost, Peter


Luce, Richard
Ryder, Richard


McCrindle, Robert
St John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Maclean, David John
Shersby, Michael


McQuarrie, Albert
Silvester, Fred


Major, John
Sims, Roger


Malins, Humfrey
Skeet, T H H


Malone, Gerald
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maples, John
Speller, Tony


Marland, Paul
Steen, Anthony


Marlow, Antony
Stern, Michael


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stokes, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Thornton, Malcolm


Miscampbell, Norman
Trippier, David


Moate, Roger
van Straubenzee, Sir W


Monro, Sir Hector
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Montgomery, Fergus
Viggers, Peter


Moore, John
Walden, George


Moynihan, Hon C.
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Neale, Gerrard
Watson, John


Nelson, Anthony
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Normanton, Tom
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Onslow, Cranley
Wood, Timothy


Oppenheim, Philip
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S



Ottaway, Richard
Tellers for the Noes


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Mr David Hunt and Mr Archie Hamilton


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil



Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to.[Special entry.]

Lords amendment No. 12 agreed to.[Special entry.]

New Clause

PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO RATEPAYERS

Lords amendment: No. 13, after clause 13 insert the following new clause—
.—(1) Rules under section 113 of the General Rate Act 1967 may require a rating authority to serve with any demand note for a rate a notice containing information—
(a) as to the past or proposed expenditure of—
(i) the rating authority; or
(ii) any authority by which a precept has been issued to the rating authority,
and as to the financing of that expenditure; and
(b) as to any increase or reduction in the rates made by the rating authority or in the precepts issued to it.
(2) Rules under that section may require an authority having power to issue precepts to serve notices on ratepayers in its area containing information—
(a) as to its past or proposed expenditure and as to the financing of that expenditure; and
(b) as to any increase or reduction in the precepts issued by the authority.
(3) Rules made by virtue of this section may make different provision for different cases; and any notice required to be served by rules made by virtue of this section shall be in such form (if any) as the rules may prescribe.
(4) An authority having power to issue precepts to a rating authority shall supply that authority with such information as is reasonably necessary for enabling it to comply with any requirements imposed by rules made by virtue of subsection (1) above; and a rating authority shall supply an authority having power to issue precepts to it with such information as is reasonably necessary for enabling the precepting authority to serve any notices required by rules made by virtue of subsection (2) above.

Mr. Straw: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in line 9, after 'to' insert 'or levy imposed upon'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments to the proposed amendment:
(b) in line 11, after 'to', insert 'or levies imposed'.
(c) in line 1,3, after 'precepts', insert—or impose levies'.
(d) in line 17, after 'issued' insert 'or levies imposed'.
(e) in line 23, after second 'to', insert 'or impose levies upon'.
(f) in line 28, after second 'to', insert 'or impose levies upon'.
(g) in line 29, after 'precepting', insert 'or levying'. Lords amendment No. 33.

Mr. Straw: Lords amendment No. 13 would insert a new clause requiring authorities to give supplementary information about their expenditure record and proposals. Although this is a further burden on already hard-pressed authorities, we do not especially disagree with it as we believe in far greater openness of Government than do the Minister and his party.
As the provisions stand, however, there would be no requirement on London Regional Transport to provide equivalent information about its levy, although it will be raising the equivalent of a rate on the ratepayers of London. We believe that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If it is right that local authorities should provide such detailed information to their ratepayers, by the same token LRT should provide similar information because its finances will be met by a levy and for this purpose it will be in the same position as a local authority.
The Minister will no doubt point out that through the Secretary of State for Transport LRT will be accountable

to this House, but that is no substitute for the provision of information to local ratepayers as it is they who will be paying the levy.

Sir George Young: I am glad that the Opposition agree with the purpose of the Lords amendment. It extends the powers of the Secretary of State under section 113 of the General Rate Act 1967 to make rules governing the content of the rate demand notice to cover information related to expenditure, financing and changes in rate or precept levels.
We believe that these powers are necessary to ensure that all ratepayers have access to the kind of background information that the best authorities already provide. We shall discuss the new rules with the local authority associations and other interested parties and we expect to use the extended powers next year to bring new rules into effect for 1986–87 rate demands. The new rules will incorporate the changes already proposed in the rates White Paper to ensure that ratepayers are aware of the proportion of their individual rate bills attributable to the levy made by each major authority in their area.
I hope that the House will agree that the amendment, with the consequential amendment to the long title, is a sensible and desirable extension of my right hon. Friend's powers to make rules in relation to rate demands and will enable us to improve the accountability of local authorities to their ratepayers.
The hon. Gentleman argued that accountability to the House was no substitute for accountability to ratepayers. I have to disagree with him. It is right that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is required to account for any levy that he makes for the purpose of financing LRT. The London Regional Transport Bill provides that by making him accountable to Parliament.
Clause 13 requires the Secretary of State to lay an order before the House each year specifying the amount in the


pound to be levied, the factors that he has taken into account in fixing levies and the means by which the amount has been calculated. Clause 13 also provides that the annual order should be subject to affirmative resolution. There is likely, therefore, to be a debate on all aspects of the ratepayers' levy, including the policies that underlie it. That means that my right hon. Friend will have to account to Parliament fully and specifically for the levy each year. That is why the LRT levy is not covered by clause 14.
Our new rule will require the total bill to be split into its component parts, which will ensure that individual ratepayers are aware of the amount required in respect of the LRT levy. I hope that the House will agree that it will not be right to extend the provisions of clause 14 to enable my right hon. Friend to make rules about the provision for ratepayers of further information about levies, especially as he would never use that power, for the reasons that I have outlined. I hope that the House will reject the amendment.

Question put and negatived.

Lords Amendment No. 13 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 14 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Schedule 1

MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS

Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 12, line 30, at end insert—

Parts of hereditaments temporarily unoccupied

3A.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 25 of the principal Act for the words from "until" to "subsection" there shall be substituted the words "until whichever of the events specified in subsection (1A) of this section first occurs".

(2) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
(1A) The events mentioned in subsection (1) of this section are—
(a) the reoccupation of any of the unoccupied part;
(b) the ending of the rate period in which the request was made;
(c) a further apportionment of the value of the hereditament taking effect under that subsection.
(1B) Where an apportionment of the value of a hereditament under subsection (1) of this section has taken effect in a rate period and, in that or a subsequent rate period, it appears to the rating authority that the part of the hereditament which was unoccupied at the date of the apportionment has continued to be unoccupied but will remain so for a short time only, the rating authority may give further effect to the apportionment by making a determination under this subsection in relation to a specified rate period.
(1C) From the commencement of the rate period to which a determination under subsection (1B) of this section relates until whichever of the events specified in subsection (1D) of this section first occurs the value apportioned to the occupied part shall be treated for rating purposes as if it were the value ascribed to the hereditament in the valuation list.
(1D) The events mentioned in subsection (1C) of this section are—
(a) the reoccupation of any of the unoccupied part;
(b) the ending of the rate period to which the determination relates;
(c) a further apportionment of the value of the hereditament taking effect under subsection (1) of this section."

(3) In subsection (2) of that section for the word "subsection" there shall be substituted the word "subsections".

(4) This paragraph shall have effect for any rate period beginning on or after 1st April 1984; and any apportionment which has taken effect under subsection (1) of section 25 of the

principal Act before this paragraph comes into force shall cease to have effect on 31st March 1985, unless it has previously ceased to have effect under that subsection or it is the subject of a determination made by virtue of this paragraph in relation to a rate period beginning after that date."

Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment, together with amendment No. 22, to which we shall come later, complete a package of measures to help business ratepayers. Amendment No. 15 is to section 25 of the General Rate Act 1967, which enables rating authorities to provide, at their discretion, rate relief on parts of premises that are temporarily oat of use. Unfortunately, because of the way in which the section is constructed, a rating authority is not able to end the relief unless and until the unused part is brought back into use. Furthermore, if the whole premises subsequently become unoccupied, the authority is unable to levy empty property rates on the part that was previously unused. That is clearly unsatisfactory from the rating authority's point of view and the result has been that authorities rarely provide section 25 relief.
The amendment would make the provision more workable and flexible by setting a time limit on the relief. Any relief that is given, including relief that has already been given, will automatically end at the end of the rating year. However, the rating local authority will be able to renew the relief without further ado if it considers it appropriate. That should encourage local authorities to make more use of the relief and will help businesses that are temporarily unable to make full use of their premises.
I hope that the House will agree that this is a sensible amendment that will ensure that an existing provision is used far more effectively.

Mr. Straw: We think that this is a sensible tidying-up of the law, and is an appropriate way to proceed.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 16 agreed to.—[Special Entry]

Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 13, line 20, after "hotel" insert ", shop, museum".

Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It extends the type of premises that fall outside the scope of the provisions in schedule 1 for formula rating the three transport boards to include shops and museums. It will enable such premises to be rated separately, as, indeed, many are at present. It will bring them into line with dwellings, hotels and places of public refreshment occupied by the transport board, which are already excluded from formula rating by schedule 1.
This is a technical amendment, which has been endorsed by the transport boards and the relevant local authority associations. I hope that the House will support its inclusion in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 21 agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 17, line 14, at end insert—

Non-domestic hereditaments not in active use

7A.—(1) After section 46 of the principal Act there shall be inserted—

Relief for non-domestic hereditaments not in active use

46A.—(1) For the purposes of this Act a hereditament to which this section applies shall be treated


as unoccupied if, apart from this section, it would fall to be treated as occupied by reason only of there being kept in or on the hereditament plant, machinery or equipment—
(a) which was used in or on the hereditament when it was last in use; or
(b) which is intended for use in or on the hereditament.

(2) This section applies to a hereditament which is not a dwelling-house, a private garage or private storage premises; and in this subsection—
(a) "private garage" means a building having a floor area not exceeding 25 square metres which is used wholly or mainly for the accommodation of a motor vehicle; and
(b) "private storage premises" means a hereditament which is used wholly in connection with a dwelling-house or dwelling-houses and wholly or mainly for the storage of articles of domestic use (including bicycles and similar vehicles) belonging to persons residing there.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) of this section a hereditament that is not in use shall nevertheless be treated as a dwelling-house, a private garage or private storage premises if it appears that, when next in use, it will be a hereditament of that description."

(2) This paragraph shall have effect for any rate period beginning on or after 1st April 1985."

Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment will provide for local authorities to treat as unoccupied hereditaments that are unused except for the storage of plant and machinery and equipment previously used or intended to be used in or on the hereditament. At present the presence of plant, machinery and equipment in a property would constitute occupation, if only for the purpose of storage. The occupier would, therefore, be liable to full rates.
The purpose of the amendment is to prevent owners from having to strip out unused plant and machinery in order to obtain empty property relief. It will especially help businesses that have closed down temporarily, but which expect to resume use of their premises at some future date. It will also assist those owners who would prefer to try to let their premises with the plant and machinery in place.
Premises that are treated as unoccupied as a result of the amendment will be exempt from rates for the first three months after they become unused. Thereafter, they will be liable to rates levied by the letting authority. Thus, industrial properties will receive 100 per cent. relief under the recent regulations, which have suspended local authorities' powers to levy rates on empty industrial property. Other types of non-domestic hereditament will receive a minimum of 50 per cent. relief.
May I take this opportunity to relay to the House my right hon. Friend's decision to extend from 1 April 1985 the Rating (Exemption of Unoccupied Industrial Hereditaments) Regulations 1984 to ensure that warehouses as well as industrial buildings are not liable for empty property rates. Support was expressed for that claim by both sides in another place. I am sure that it will be welcomed by the House.
The amendment complements Lords amendment No. 15, which the House has just agreed to. I hope that hon. Members will agree that it is a worthwhile reform.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment: No. 23, in page 17, line 14, at end insert—

Domestic rate relief

7B.—(1) In section 48(5) of the principal Act for the word "movable" there shall be substituted the words "two or more moveable" and in paragraph 3 of Schedule 13 to that Act before the word "moveable" there shall be inserted the words "two or more".

(2) This paragraph shall be deemed always to have had effect."

Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It is a new provision that clarifies the existing legislation relating to the provision of domestic rate relief for caravans and houseboats, which is contained in schedule 13 to the General Rate Act 1967. A recent court case has cast some doubt on whether a single moveable dwelling is eligible for this relief under schedule 13.
It has always been intended that such dwellings should be eligible for domestic rate relief. The amendment will ensure that single caravans and houseboats continue to get the relief. I hope that the House will agree that it is desirable to clarify the law in this respect.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment: No. 24, in page 17, line 16, at beginning insert—
(1) In section 50(1) of the principal Act for the words from "(not being a tenant" to "through the owner" there shall be substituted the words "is liable to pay any rates in respect of a hereditament"; and for the words "any rates", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "the rates".

Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 25.
The amendment is a technical one that ensures that all ratepayers are entitled to pay their rates in monthly instalments. As previously granted, schedule 1 would have extended that right only to occupiers who pay rates. However, there are also owners who pay rates, such as the owners of unoccupied property, or landlords who have undertaken to pay rates on behalf of their tenants. It is only right that such ratepayers should be able to pay by instalment. I hope that the House will agree that that is desirable.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment No. 25 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment: No. 26, in page 21, line 5, leave out from "list" to end of line 11 and insert—
(c) minutes of the proceedings of any local valuation court with respect to the valuation list currently in force in a rating area or, subject to subsection (3) of this section, the immediately preceding valuation list; and
(d) minutes of the proceedings of any rating authority during the preceding ten years or, where the valuation list currently in force in the rating area of an authority was transmitted to it under section 68(2) of this Act before the commencement of that period, during the period since the list was transmitted to the authority.

Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 27.

Sir George Young: This is another technical amendment which ensures that the provisions which restrict right of access to certain old—and inessential rating records—do not restrict access to records to which ratepayers and valuation officers might reasonably


need to have access, nor restrict in any way the persons who are entitled to such access. I hope that the House will agree to the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 27 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 28, in page 22, line 46, at end insert—

Adjustment of grant for disparities in rate revenue

.—(1) For section 59(11)(c) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 there shall be subsituted—
(c) as if paragraph (e)—
(i) were omitted except in relation to any exercise of the power conferred by subsection (1) above for a purpose mentioned in subsection (6)(b) or (c) above; and
(ii) in relation to any such exercise of that power, referred to two classes, namely, councils of outer London boroughs."

(2) This paragraph has effect in relation to any financial year beginning on or after 1st April 1983."

Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a technical amendment to the legislation which governs the block grant system. It removes a doubt about the powers under which the London resource discount arrangments are currently implemented. This is the scheme that allows London authorities to retain part of the benefit of their very high rateable resources, and helps reduce the burden of rates in London. The scheme has been in existence for many years under successive grant systems and Governments.
I hope that the House will agree to this technical amendment.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment: No. 29 in page 22, line 46, at end insert—

Substituted rates and precepts

—(1) After subsection (8) of section 3 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 there shall be inserted—
(9) Where the original rate or precept has been quashed because it is insufficient to meet the expenditure required to be taken into account under section 2 or 11 of the said Act of 1967, subsection (2) above shall not prevent a substituted rate or precept being made or issued which is sufficient to meet that expenditure.
(10) Where, whether by virtue of this section or otherwise, a precept is issued to a rating authority after it has made a rate for the financial year to which the precept relates, subsection (2) above shall not prevent a substituted rate being made by the authority for giving effect to the precept; and a rating authority which makes a substantial rate by virtue of this subsection shall be entitled to recover from the precepting authority in question any increase in its administrative or rate collection expenses which is attributable to that rate.

(2) This paragraph shall have effect in relation to any financial year beginning on or after 1st April 1984."

Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment stems from a commitment that we gave in Committee to consider carefully the implications of an amendment tabled by Opposition Members that sought to clarify the position of a rating authority if a precepting authority had issued a precept that did not comply with the requirements of clause 6 that in the case of designated authorities the rate or precept must be set within the maximum prescribed by the Secretary of State.
It was pointed out that a rating authority cannot take into account an invalid precept when it makes its rate, but a rating authority could be placed in a difficult position if, after having made its rate, it received a valid precept from

a precepting authority. In those circumstances, it could find that the rate that it had made was insufficient to provide for the later precept.
The effect of section 3 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 is that a rating or a precepting authority cannot make a rate or a precept in substitution for an original rate or precept for any amount higher than the amount of the original rate or precept. Subsection (10) of the amendment therefore provides that where a precept is issued to a rating authority after it has made a rate for the financial year to which the precept relates, it shall be able to make a substituted rate for giving effect to the precept. A rating authority that has to make a substituted rate in that way will be entitled to recover from the precepting authority in question any increase in its administrative or rate collection expenses that is attributable to that rate.
We have also considered the position of any rating or precepting authority that makes a rate or precept which is invalid because it fails to comply with the requirement of sections 2 and 11 respectively of the General Rate Act 1967. Those provisions place a duty upon rating and precepting authorities to make such rates or precepts as are sufficient to provide for their total estimated expenditure that is not to be met by means other than the rate or precept. The part of this amendment that inserts a new subsection (9) in section 3 of the 1982 Act is necessary to ensure that, were a rate or precept ever to be quashed by the courts as insufficient, the rating or precepting authority would have power subsequently to make a substituted rate or precept at a higher level which was sufficient to meet their estimated expenditure.
The amendment has effect in relation to any financial year beginning on or after 1 April 1984.
I hope that the House will agree to the amendment.

Mr. Straw: Lords amendment No. 29 will be the final occasion on which the Opposition Front Bench will have an opportunity to speak as we shall forgo the opportunity to speak on amendment No. 30 and amendments Nos. 31 and 32, which are grouped with it. There is not a great deal to say on amendment No. 31, which is as follows:
Page 25, line 28, after 'this' insert 'Part of this'.
That is something that I have been thinking about all day.
We are not supposed to mention the officials in the Box, but they look demob happy. They may be happy that, at long last, it looks as if—sadly—the Bill will complete all its stages in the House. I warn them, however, as the people who partly have to bear the brunt of the Government's policy, that their troubles have only just begun. Labour authorities will not take lying down attempts by the Government to override the decisions of their electors about the level of services that should be provided. The ladies and gentlemen in the Box know that we of the Opposition bear them no personal ill will—far from it——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's vision should stop this side of the Chair.

Mr. Straw: Indeed. Even if the Bill receives Royal Assent in the next few weeks, far from it being the end of the Government's problems, it will herald the beginning of their problems.
We recognise the necessity for the amendment in current circumstances. My colleagues who were members of the Committees on earlier Bills that prohibited the raising of supplementary rates, where those supplementary


rates were above the previous level, will look with a wry smile on the fact that the Government have had to introduce legislation to provide for a substituted rate to be lawful, although that substituted rate is higher than the previous rate that was quashed, but we shall let that go. I hope that the House will agree to the amendment.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Schedule 2

RATING OF MOORINGS

Lords amendment: No. 30, in page 23, line 2, at end insert—

PART I

EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN MOORINGS

—(1) No mooring to which this paragraph applies shall be liable to be rated or to be included in any valuation list or in any rate.

(2) This paragraph applies to any mooring—
(a) used or intended to be used by a boat or ship; and
(b) equipped only with a buoy attached to an anchor, weight or other device—
(i) which rests on or in the bed of the sea or any river or other waters when in use; and
(ii) which is designed to be raised from that bed from time to time.

(3) This paragraph shall have effect for any rate period beginning on or after 1st April 1985.

PART II

RATING OF MULTIPLE MOORINGS"

Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 31 and 32.

Sir George Young: We have received a very large number of representations, mainly from yacht clubs and

owners, about the effects of schedule 2. Amongst them, there is a widespread—and, I have to say, mistaken—belief that the schedule places a new tax on yachting. Let me say quite clearly that the schedule as originally drafted in no way affects the basic rateability of moorings, which has existed for a very long time. In practice, however, many moorings have escaped rating because of the difficulty of identifying occupiers, while others have had to pay rates. That is clearly unfair. Part II of schedule 2 therefore ensures that that liability can be better enforced by providing valuation officers with discretion to assess a group of moorings in separate occupation as a single hereditament in the occupation of the owner.
I understand the concern of the yachting community that this may lead to an additional financial burden for some of them. Much of that concern is focused on whether it is proper to rate one particular type of mooring, commonly known as a swinging mooring, which consists of a buoy attached to an anchor or weight that lies on the seabed and is designed to be raised from time to time—for example, in the winter, or for maintenance. There is some doubt about the rateablity of such moorings, many of which may not be sufficiently permamently fixed to the seabed to satisfy the basic criteria for rateability.
The amendment fulfils a commitment that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), gave in Committee to remove any such doubt by making it clear that that type of mooring is not liable to be assessed for rates, and I hope that the House will agree that this is a sensible and pragmatic solution. The remainder of schedule 2 is not altered and will apply to all moorings that are not exempted from rates by this amendment.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendments No. 31 and 32 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment No. 33 agreed to.

Roads (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Hon. Members may have noticed that there are some misprints on the Amendment Paper. I shall draw the attention of the House to them as we reach them.

New Clause 3

POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO EXTEND PROVISIONS OF ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984 ETC. TO PROPOSED ROADS IN SCOTLAND

'After section 132 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 there shall be inserted the following section—

132A.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, there may be prescribed relevant references which are to be construed as including references to proposed roads.

(2) No regulation under subsection (1) above shall have, or purport to have, the effect of rendering criminal conduct (or ommisions) which, but for the regulations, would not be criminal.

(3) The foregoing provisions of this section are without prejudice to the exercise of any other power under this Act.

(4) In subsections (1) and (2) above—
proposed road" has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984; and
relevant reference" means a reference to a road in a provision of, or made by, under or by virtue of, this Act.'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 39.

Mr. Stewart: The Road Traffic Regulation Bill, which is a consolidation measure, is currently under consideration. The purpose of the new clause is to enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to specify that appropriate provisions in that Bill will apply to proposed roads as well as to completed roads. He will exercise his power by means of regulations, which will be subject to approval by resolution of each House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

RESTRICTED ROADS: AMENDMENT OF ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984

'Schedule [Restricted roads] to this Act (which amends provisions regarding restricted roads under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) shall have effect.'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 21 to 25, 7 and 40.

Mr. Stewart: These amendments to road traffic legislation are being introduced to remedy the serious problem which faces road authorities and the police on

speed limit control. Hon. Members will know that the Bill does not deal with road traffic matters, but there is no other readily available means of dealing with this position.
The problem stems from the current system of determining what restricted roads are. They are roads which automatically attract a 30 mph speed limit. The basic criterion is that they have a system of street lighting with lamps not more than 200 yards apart. Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 a second determining factor for a restricted road was that it was unclassified or, if it was a trunk or classified road, had a system of street lighting prior to 1 July 1957.
With the passage of time and changes, such as Local government reorganisation, it became increasingly difficult to establish which trunk and classified roads had lights installed on them prior to that date. As a result prosecutions for speeding offences became difficult on some roads, which were subject to a 30 mph limit but could not be proved to have one.
An attempt to remedy that position was made in the Transport Act 1982, which amended the restricted road provisions in the 1967 legislation. Unfortunately, those involved in speed limit control found great difficulty in understanding the terms of the amending legislation. The only effect seems to have been to apply a 30 mph speed limit to any road on which lights are installed, whether or not such a limit is appropriate to it. Consequently, to apply the appropriate speed limit, roads authorities must become involved in the costly and time-consuming business of making individual speed limit control orders. Moreover, the amendments to the 1982 legislation depended on whether or not certain signs were in place on a certain date, but reference to such a date caused the problem which the amendments sought to resolve.
I hope that the House will agree that the existing position is near to complete confusion. It is evident that a revised system of determining speed limit control is necessary. It is important to ensure that the changes made will not require the re-education of drivers, and will involve the minimum of expenditure. I am happy to tell the House that such a system has been agreed in joint discussions between the Scottish Office, local authorities, the police and the Crown Office. The system provides that restricted roads will be of a class or type prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations, and which have a system of lighting such as the one that I mentioned earlier. All other roads will be subject to the prevailing national speed limits unless orders are made by roads authorities to impose different limits. A restricted road can also have its speed limit changed by such an order.
The revised system is clear, simple, and involves no references to historic dates. We have made provision for special transitional orders to be made. As they will maintain the status quo and will not affect adversely the interests of anyone, they will be free from procedural requirements.
Everyone will welcome the prospect of a coherent and workable system of speed limit control, which these amendments provide. They have been agreed by all the relevant parties, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your clarification. The Minister said that the amendments were about road traffic regulations and not roads provision. They are two different matters. The report of our Committee proceedings last


week shows that when on one or two occasions I raised issues relating to road traffic offences the Minister said that they were not relevant to the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It might be better if I propose the Question to the House. Then the Minister can answer the hon. Member's question, which relates to the content of the Bill rather than to the order of our proceedings in the House.

Mr. Maxton: It is a point of order, and I wish to pursue it. I tabled some new clauses and amendments in Committee and on Report which were ruled out of order by the Chair because they were about road traffic regulations. Yet the Minister introduced a new clause which is about road traffic regulations. It is unfair for the Government to be allowed to table new clauses which do not relate to the Bill when Back-Bench Members cannot. If such matters are to be allowed, will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, reconsider the items which I tabled and which were not selected? If Government amendments about road traffic matters can be selected, I do not see why other such amendments cannot also be selected.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member cannot reopen the question of the selection or non-selection of amendments in Committee. The usual care was given to the validity of amendments, whether they were tabled by Ministers or other hon. Members. The Minister's amendments are in order.

Mr. Jim Craigen: I have sympathy with the difficulty that faced my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) last week when we discussed matters relating to pedestrian crossings. It was made clear that the Bill was primarily concerned with consolidation and not with road traffic matters. I have noted what the Minister said, and it is clear that where there is a will there is a way.
8 pm
The Minister is dealing with a tricky issue. As I understand it, there have been joint meetings between officials of the Scottish Office and officials of the COSLA working party which dealt with speed limits. I take it from what he said that COSLA is reasonably happy that the proposals that have been drafted and are before the House will meet the difficulties which currently face police and road authorities in establishing the status of a road and the appropriate speed limit.
In addition to what the Minister has said about the provision of street lighting, I must say that the quality of street lighting is often a problem. I hope that due regard is paid to that in the provisions that the House has been asked to examine.
How widely used will the changes be? Does the Minister envisage that local authorities will be involved in additional expenditure for the signposting of speed limits? I recall trying to persuade Strathclyde region roads department to have a 40 mph speed limit on a stretch of dual carriageway where people were a little worried about the volume and speed of traffic when they were crossing the road. On the telephone, the road engineer said to me, "We take the view that traffic finds its own speed." I replied, "If that is the case, what is the point of having any traffic restriction signs at all?"
The Minister will be aware that ideas and interpretations of regulations can sometimes vary according to the road engineer or authority with which one is dealing. I hope that the Minister can assure us on three points: COSLA's opinion, the quality of street lighting and the costs that local authorities are likely to incur as a result of these proposed changes.

8 pm

Mr. Maxton: I always find myself torn on the subject of speed limits. One can always see the point of imposing speed limits throughout built-up areas where there are likely to be pedestrians on the pavements to ensure the safety of the young and the elderly and I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) mentioned the handicapped last week when I raised a similar point in another debate.
We must consider the subject of speed limits carefully, and the Minister may be right in what he is doing. However, I am worried about laws which are unenforceable. That is the problem with speed limits. They are ignored by 95 per cent. of the drivers for 98 per cent. of the time. As a result, the law is broken consistently. [Laughter.] I do not know what the cackle is behind me. The law is ignored, and that brings it into contempt.

Mr. John Home Robertson: As my hon. Friend referred to me, I should explain that certain Members on the Conservative Benches are saying that my hon. Friend is wrong and that 100 per cent. of the time would have been more appropriate.

Mr. Maxton: I am sure that Conservative Members do not believe that, although some Conservative Members may ignore speed limits 100 per cent. of the time.
There is a problem with the imposition of speed limits. People do not obey them. When people disobey them, they get caught only on the odd occasion. Most motorists drive their cars and say, "If I get caught, that is too bad. It will be only once in a thousand times that I am caught for this offence."

Mr. David Marshall: How many times has my hon. Friend been caught?

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend asks how many times I have been caught. With the privilege of the House, I believe that I do not have to tell my hon. Friend that. I can assure him that I have been caught for speeding in the past and may well be caught for speeding in the future. That bears out the point that I am making—that most motorists break the law. They do not obey the speed limits. I am glad to see two distinguished Scottish lawyers in the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). They would agree that having laws which are broken by a great many respectable people for a great deal of the time cannot be conducive to good law and order. It brings law into contempt. It makes the policeman an enemy to many people when they are driving a car.
Rather than speed limits, the more important point to consider is how we can better protect pedestrians within built-up areas. I return to the point I made earlier—I shall not stray too far, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know that you would rule me out of order—that the major problem for pedestrians is crossing busy roads. The speed of the traffic is important, but it is only part of the


problem. The other part of the problem is their ability to cross roads when there is a heavy traffic flow. That brings us to the proper provision of pedestrian phases at traffic light-controlled crossings and pedestrian-controlled traffic lights where necessary, and pedestrian crossings, to ensure that people can cross the road safely.
The present criteria that the Secretary of State uses when allowing local road authorities to establish crossings do not take proper account of the age and physical health of all the people who use the crossings. The main interest lies in the number of cars on the road rather than the people who use the crossings. I hope that the Minister will take some notice of that.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the major problems with pedestrian crossings that has not been highlighted is that elderly and infirm people do not have time to cross the road before the lights change against them?

Mr. Maxton: As my hon. Friend will be aware, there is one clause which provides that where there is a major danger to pedestrians and that local authorities feel that that is the case they may build a bridge or an underpass to solve the problem. I accept the point that my hon. Friend makes. There are elderly people who find it difficult to cross traffic light-controlled and other pedestrian crossings. There are many busy streets in our towns where there are no such crossings and no way for the people to cross. Motorists should take more account of traffic lights and pedestrian crossings.
If road traffic regulations are to be introduced into the Bill, the Government should table new clauses to lay down new criteria for the introduction of traffic light-controlled crossings to ensure greater safety for our children, our elderly and our handicapped.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) for his constructive response to the introduction of the new clause. I can confirm that we have had full discussions with COSLA and with the police. British standards are available and the road authorities follow them. The hon. Member has also asked me about administrative time and extra costs. A certain amount of extra administrative time will have to be spent initially by roads authorities in identifying roads whose speed limits would otherwise automatically be changed on the introduction of the new system.
I have mentioned the transitional arrangement. The changeover will involve less time and effort than would otherwise be expended by local authorities, the police and others in trying to fathom and operate the existing complex provisions.

Mr. Craigen: Is the Minister telling us that this exercise is based on a cost-benefit analysis and that we shall save in lawyer's fees the money spent by road engineers?

Mr. Stewart: No. There will be a small once-for-all administrative cost. However, no new signs will be needed.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I am afraid that I have not looked with great care at the Road Traffic Regulation Bill. I see that the definition of a road which will be able to carry a speed limit has been metricated, and the distance is now 185 metres rather than

200 yards. I do not know whether that is an improvement. However, I also see that in any proceedings for contravention of clause 81 of the Bill a certificate signed by an officer of the Secretary of State that a road is of a specified classification or type shall be sufficient evidence of the facts certified. Presumably that means that it will no longer be necessary for someone to come to court and say that there are lights on the roads and that they are less than 185 metres apart.
Can such a certificate be challenged? Self-evidently, it will prove itself if not challenged, but if I want to lead evidence that the Secretary of State or his representative have skelly eyes and cannot count, and that the lamp posts are not the right distance apart, the new subsection (1)(a) holds out little prospect of challenging the certificate. I can challenge the assertion that the document has been signed by the person who is supposed to have signed it, but I cannot lead evidence to challenge the findings in the document.
I see the tremendous convenience of the document proving itself, but I foresee some danger if no one can prove to the Secretary of State that, perhaps because of an administrative mishap, the information in the certificate is wrong.

Mr. Stewart: I should like to take up the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Max ton). We are not talking about road traffic regulations as such. The House will have had much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's major point, which was that speed limits should be realistic. If they are realistic, they will be observed by most drivers. Unrealistic limits have been shown by experience to be ignored by drivers, because most drivers will select a speed which they consider to be safe in the circumstances of the road. Hon. Members are all probably aware of the stretches of road on which cars often travel much faster than the speed limit.
The criteria must be realistic. It is therefore necessary to have a speed survey aimed at finding a speed below which 85 per cent. of traffic moves in free flow conditions. The 85 percentile speed is taken as the guideline for setting the limit.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked a question about certification. I am advised that the question relates only to classification. It does not relate to the presence of lights.

Mr. Dewar: It may be that there is no problem here, but I want to be clear about the position in my own mind. I have a dim memory of people successfully defending themselves against charges of parking offences on the ground that the lights on the roads were not sufficiently close together to make it clear that there could be a speed limit on the road. Does the classification cover that point? Is that a point that could be challenged, or has it been shed in some way during the processes of change? Perhaps the Minister will write to me on the matter.

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will write to him, setting out the position fully.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

PARKING OF CARAVANS ON LAY-BYS

'A person who parks a caravan for more than eight hours at any one time on a lay-by adjoining a trunk road commits an offence.'.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 2—Parking of caravans on picnic sites—
'A person who parks a caravan for more than eight hours at any one time on a picnic site provided under section 55 of this Act commits an offence.'
Amendment No. 5, in schedule 8, page 177, line 27, at end insert—
'Section (Parking of caravans on lay-bys): Parking for more than eight hours on a lay-by'.
Amendment No. 6, in page 177, line 27, at end insert—
'Section (Parking of caravans on picnic sites): The Parking for more than eight hours on a picnic site.'.

Mr. Walker: The background to the new clause is that experience has shown that, when splendid laybys are provided, they are not always occupied by the people who were expected to occupy them.
Clause 55 provides for the provision of picnic sites on our major trunk roads. That is something of which I heartily approve.

Mr. Craigen: During proceedings on the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, the hon. Gentleman made great play of the fact that he was the caravaner's friend. What would be the position under the new clause of a caravaner from, say, Blairgowrie, travelling to Edinburgh, whose caravan developed a fault? If he was stuck in a layby for a day or two, what would his position be?

Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain my thinking more fully, I shall deal with that point. I have been a caravaner all my adult life.

Mr. Maxton: And a pilot, a glider, a bus driver, a trade unionist, a council house tenant——

Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman knew anything about those who spend their recreation time flying and gliding, he would realise that one of the important things that is not available to them is a residence. They therefore tend to pull the residence around with them, and that is where the caravan comes in. One becomes a caravaner because of one's other interests. There is a caravan parked beside my house today, as there has been for my whole adult life.
The amendment is neither frivolous nor humorous. We are spending much money on our trunk roads to make it possible for individuals who have a legitimate interest in the countryside to see our beautiful countryside. The facilities are intended to be used by genuine tourists who use the trunk roads as a means of getting from point A to point B. Among those tourists there will be caravaners who from time to time will find themselves in exactly the same position as someone who breaks down on a motorway or anywhere else. One commits an offence if one leaves the broken-down vehicle in a position in which it could cause problems to others. The normal procedure

is to call out assistance. The Caravan Club and other bodies make provision so that assistance can be summoned. Those who find themselves in that situation are able to call assistance. It is unlikely that they will be stranded for days on end.
New clause 1 deals with people who wilfully park on laybys for more than eight hours. Some people park for days and frequently for months. That is not intended by clause 55, by which we provide picnic sites. Overstaying is an abuse of a provision that is intended for the legitimate traveller. Contrary to the views expressed by some Opposition Members, I work closely with the National Gypsy Council and with travelling people in my constituency, who oppose overstayers. They believe that provision of proper sites is the means by which to deal with the matter. The A9 is the main road to the north and now has substantial sums of public money spent on it and I hope that clause 55 will ensure that there will be picnic sites on it, but not if they are abused, as is the case with other laybys.
It is not enough for my hon. Friend the Minister to say that local authorities can make byelaws to ensure that such people are prosecuted because under the arrangement of non-harassment the police visit a layby, make a charge and submit details to procurators fiscal, who submit the case to the Crown Office for approval. By then, the people concerned might have been on the site for three weeks. I should like statutory penalties to be written into the Bill. That would be a simple and effective means by which to ensure that the new picnic sites are not abused. The laybys should present an image of an interested and caring society which wants tourists and caravaners to visit the area.
Anyone who has used the A9 at this time of the year will be aware that there is a caravan every few hundred yards. We must ensure that trunk roads have adequate facilities for genuine caravaners. Genuine tourists are deterred from using laybys because of their appalling state, as a result of being misused by people who are not the travellers of the romantic past. They are a new type of person, whom I call dropouts who want to avoid the consequences of having an address, such as paying tax. Such people have been photographed and reported in the local press as saying that they do not care, that they will park anyway, and that they do not care what we do.
We face a serious problem, which detracts from the Scottish countryside and results in people who have travelled a route resolving never to go back. We should think seriously about the problem. We are discussing trunk roads, not secondary roads on which many laybys are abused. I merely wish to ensure that the new picnic sites are not abused.

Sir Hector Monro: There is much sense in what my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said, bearing in mind the fact that a layby is defined as a place for a temporary stop. The important point here is that we are dealing with trunk roads. We do not want permanent parking on the verges of our trunk roads. We want laybys to be used for temporary stops—for a meal or an overnight stop.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister does not leave the matter entirely to local authority byelaws but provides a much more rapidly dealt with offence so that caravaners can be moved on quickly after they have stayed their allotted time. It would be useful to have on record the legal status of signs that are occasionally found in laybys which


say, "No overnight parking". Are byelaws enforceable or are such signs merely an expression of hope on the part of the highways authority? My hon. Friend has raised a serious point. Of course, if someone breaks down with a puncture or worse, the police will take that into account.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) talked about caravaners and drop-outs and explained his worries. I hope that he will not take it amiss if I tell him that several Opposition Members viewed new clause 1, and, to some extent, still do, as part of his campaign in regard to travelling people in the Perth and Kinross area. Anyone who reads the reports of Scottish Question Time for the past few years will find that the hon. Gentleman has constantly urged the hapless Solicitor-General for Scotland to spend a great deal of his valuable time interviewing the procurator fiscal in Perth about his failure to mount sufficient prosecutions against travelling people.
There has been a rather unpleasant atmosphere about some of the exchanges on this matter. I remember talk about illegal parking, about collusion between national and local government officials and the discredited advisory committee. The hon. Gentleman said that he tried to keep good relations with organisations that deal with travelling people but, in a recent exchange, he was not above referring to the national advisory committee on travelling people as discredited. There have also been hints about health and hygiene, vermin problems and the rest.
Although the hon. Gentleman introduced new clause 1 in a most general sense, his anxieties and, I believe, unjustified feelings about travelling people have much to do with these new clauses and amendments. I recognise that there can be a problem, although it is limited. The hon. Gentleman will know that only about 500 families in Scotland were on the road in 1982. I admit that 103 of them were in the Perth and Kinross area, which might be higher than expected. However, the problem is limited and should be treated with sympathy. This seems to be an attempt to ensure that travelling people shall be dealt with expeditiously and moved on quickly so that in no way will they offend the susceptibilities of the hon. Member for Tayside, North and his friends.
8.30 pm
It became clear during the hon. Gentleman's remarks that the new clauses are designed to get around the Government's long standing policy of non-harassment. The Labour Opposition—I suspect that the other Opposition parties may sympathise—believe that policy to be correct. It has our support. If the intention of the new clauses is to circumvent it, they should be resisted by the Government.
I referred to the number of travelling families on the roads in Scotland and to the latest estimate available to me. I am sure that the Minister has been well briefed and, like me, will have seen what was behind the new clauses. Will he say something about the current situation on sites? That may sound as though I am widening the debate, but I do not think that I am because the whole policy of non-harassment is at the centre of the debate on these new clauses.
That policy applies not to any general offence that may be committed by someone travelling the roads but is specifically limited to the problem of unlawful encampment, and involves the submission of papers to the Crown Office. It seems to be something akin to overkill,

but if we are to take literally the answers that we have received, those papers are personally scrutinised by the Lord Advocate who decides whether any prosecution is necessary. From what we have been told we know that the Lord Advocate takes into account the circumstances in which the alleged offence took place, but also considers a number of other matters such as the number of sites available in the locality in which the caravans came to rest.
On 15 February this year in column 259 of the Official Report, the Solicitor-General for Scotland made it clear that the Government were doing everything in their power to encourage the provision of sites. There have, of course, been 100 per cent. grants since June 1980. How much has been spent, how many sites are there and what has been the usage rate? I ask those questions because they are relevant to the operation of the non-harassment policy, which indirectly is being attacked by the back door. Have there been any prosecutions?

Mr. Bill Walker: Not so.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Member for Tayside, North says with some indignation that that is not the position. If non-harassment is a matter of lawful encampment, the situation must be considered at the highest level in the Crown Office before a prosecution can be mounted. That is an interesting argument that we may debate later if the new clauses find favour with the House, but it is not clear whether, if the new clauses were added to the Bill, they would be included in the non-harassment policy as well. In other words, this would then be regarded as unlawful encampment and would therefore be subject to what the hon. Member for Tayside, North no doubt sees as the kid glove approach which the non-harassment policy represents.

Mr. Walker: The new clause explicitly refers to trunk roads. In my constituency, where there have been problems on laybys, the trunk roads have not been affected. However, that could change because of the provision of new picnic sites on trunk roads. There are plenty of laybys on the non-trunk routes and, consequently, the non-harassment policy, if continued, would provide adequate parking. In addition, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are sites in Perthshire.

Mr. Dewar: I am well aware that there are sites in Perthshire. I know that there have been some delays in implementation and, to be fair, the hon. Gentleman has at various times made a fuss about that. For example, the site at Tulloch has caused some problems.
Under the policy of non-harassment there would be no prosecution for unlawful encampment without the specific authority of the Lord Advocate. If the new clause were to reach the statute book—I hope that it will not for reasons that I shall give—presumably any prosecution to be mounted by the procurator fiscal would be included in the non-harassment agreement, or would it be modified automatically given that these provisions are analogous with that policy and would be seen as unlawful encampment charges?
As I understand the intervention of the hon. Member for Tayside, North, it is that I am putting far too sinister an interpretation on the new clauses and that in no way are they meant to restrict travelling people resting their caravans in laybys. Indeed, there are many laybys on small side roads in the hon. Gentleman's constituency where, by implication, travelling people would be welcome to go and


camp. For cosmetic reasons and to help the tourist trade the new clauses are designed to stop caravans resting in laybys on trunk roads.
The hon. Gentleman may take this amiss, but there is a good deal of sophistry in that approach. It is thoroughly unconvincing. Frankly, his dislike of the non-harassment policy and the habits and way of life of travelling folk are at the base of the new clauses.
I entirely accept that there can be problems and that it would be ludicrous if there were no protection against someone setting up home in a layby near to another person's dwelling thereby creating major problems. But at a technical level these proposals would produce far more difficulties than they would solve, apart from their doubtful pedigree and the basis on which they have been put forward.
I do not know what a caravan would be in this context. A definition would have to be written in, and that would be difficult as the Bill has now concluded its passage. As the hon. Member for Tayside, North will know, it has already been through the other place. Perhaps he is thinking of the definition in section 29 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, which does not include a tent. I do not know whether that distinction was meant to be made in the new clauses. But if one looks at the Mobile Homes Act, the various caravan sites Acts and the 1960 Act, one will see that there are problems over the definition of a caravan. At a minor technical level, the new clauses are inadequate, given that there has been no attempt to define what we are talking about or what would be the subject of criminal prosecution.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Tayside, North would agree that the creation of a criminal offence is serious. If one intends to do so, one should go to the trouble of defining the offence. That has not clearly and sensibly been done.
I suspect that adequate powers already exist to move people on from laybys if in some way they have become a public nuisance. If a policemen were to say, "Under the motorway regulations and the trunk road regulations we are asking you to move on", and the drop-out, travelling person or the man from Margate who has broken his back axle told him to sod off, there is something called the Police (Scotland) Act 1967. That has recently been given a certain prominence. I am sure that the Minister would be the first to assure his hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North that such an incident would amount to a breach of the peace and that the person concerned could be summarily lifted and removed to the local police station.
Will the Minister confirm that the police have no difficulty moving people on in the way that I have described? If they refused to move on—this is perhaps the real point in view of the arguments that have been used—they are then arrested for a breach of the peace or obstructuring a police officer in the course of his duty under the 1967 Act. There would then not be a prosecution for unlawful encampment, and such people would not have the protection of the non-harassment policy. The situation is adequately covered, and if the police allow these people to defy them it is because the police do not think that the situation is as horrendous, serious and difficult as the hon. Member for Tayside, North instinctively does every time he comes across someone

who can be described as a travelling person, a drop-out or someone who does not fit into his set of socially acceptable norms.
It is clear that this new clause is badly drafted. It is inadequate in definition and absolutely unnecessary because the existing powers are adequate. This is a difficult problem. There are frictions, and it would be silly to claim that they do not arise. To their credit, the Government have tried with the grants that they have given to the non-harassment policy to deal with this sensitively and sympathetically, which is what this problem demands. To adopt these new clauses would be to disrupt that approach and to import on to the statute book a series of proposals that would be seen as vengeful and hostile. They would put back by a long time the cause of the proper integration of travelling folk into society if they so wish. Therefore, I hope that the new clauses will be resisted by the Minister. If he does not, the Labour party will resist them.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I support the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) either has not ventured out of the boundaries of his constituency or has not done his homework on this matter. For those of us who represent constituencies where tourism has an important place in the economy, these new clauses offer some hope.
One of the first letters from a constituent that I received after coming to this place was on this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) sent me a reply that I had occasion to discuss with him afterwards. In that reply, he pointed out that the police could not be expected to enforce the existing law, which is difficult to enforce. People were parking their caravans in laybys that were intended for other purposes, and this constituted a problem that caravan site owners, not unnaturally, are distressed about.
We impose on caravan site owners considerable costs and obligations in terms of planning, screening their sites, ensuring that there are adequate sanitation and sewerage arrangements and adequate provision of water supplies. They ask, quite rightly, why people on holiday in caravans should be able to park themselves in the nearest layby and do whatever they do in the heather, while all the costs imposed on the caravan site owners and all the obligations intended to protect the environment go for naught. My hon. Friend's new clauses are important in that respect.
Labour Members wax eloquent on the policy of non-harassment and how important it is. I ask them to look at the response of the local authority in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North. That authority has been enlightened and has provided decent sites. I wish that my Stirling district council was as enlightened. The members of the Labour party on the council seem to play a game of, "How can I avoid this travelling people's site being in my ward?" with the net result that we have no travelling people's site. That means that, despite the fact that they can have a 100 per cent. grant to provide such a site, nobody is prepared to have it in his ward. Travelling people parking in laybys represent a major problem and one that is not the fault——

Mr. Maxton: What, on trunk routes?

Mr. Forsyth: In my constituency there is a trunk route that causes problems. The local authority is particularly embarrassed because it is not prepared to provide a permanent site because of the prejudices in the Labour groups on the council.
I am sure that the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North is not to deal with the policy of non-harassment, which needs to be dealt with separately. I hope that my hon. Friends will have the courage to face up to the problems being created by that policy. My hon. Friend's intention was to deal with the existing problem. In my constituency, the problem of travelling people parking in laybys does not arise in the highland areas or the areas of outstanding beauty. However, I have faced terrible resentment from people who have to meet obligations and costs that are then ignored by those who find it cheaper to park in a layby.
No doubt the police could find reasons to move people on, but this is not a priority, because the overwhelming impression given to the police, especially if they ever read or listen to the hon. Member for Garscadden, is that this is not an important problem. It is an important problem, particularly in parts of Scotland where tourism is a large currency earner.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) never fails to amaze the House. We have just heard the great disciple of private enterprise, the man who endlessly tells us that he is opposed to state intervention in anything, saying that it should become a criminal offence to leave a caravan in a layby for eight hours under any circumstances. I know that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said that there should be exceptions, but his new clauses mean that anyone who ever leaves a caravan on a layby on a trunk road in Scotland for eight hours or more should be subject to proceedings at the hands of the police. I am amazed that the hon. Member for Stirling should support such a suggestion.
I suppose that we should no longer be surprised by some of the things said by Conservative Members. We are familiar with the level of intolerance shown by the hon. Member for Tayside, North, and we have been treated to the now immortal words of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone), who said last week that any miner who ever showed his face on the picket line was a common criminal.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): That has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Home Robertson: It has a lot to do with it. It has been said that miners who turn up on a picket line are ipso facto common criminals, and, if this new clause were to pass into statute, anyone who left a caravan on a layby for eight hours would become a common criminal and would be subject to such procedures.
I understand the problems about which the hon. Member for Tayside, North is talking. In my previous constituency of Berwick and East Lothian, I was particularly aware of the problem in Berwickshire. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is here now and he knows the difficulties that have arisen in a particular caravan site in his constituency.

Frankly, it would have been a lot better if the people concerned had been encouraged to use laybys on their way through rather than becoming frequent residents in a tourist caravan site.
However, the more one restricts these people, the more difficulties will be created for them and everybody else. I am appalled by the negative, legalistic and arrogant attitude expressed by Conservative Members. I hope that the Minister, and any other rational person—just for once I shall give the Minister the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is semi-rational—will reject these new clauses out of hand, because that is what should happen.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I support the new clauses. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) gave his usual tirade about travelling people. New clause 1 refers not to travelling people, but to everyone who owns a caravan.
New clause 2 refers specifically to caravans parked on picnic sites. Local authorities like mine which benefit from tourism provide caravan sites adjacent to picnic sites. The tendency is for people with children who are touring in a caravan to move to a picnic site and, if they are permitted, to remain on that site overnight and then continue the journey.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Is the hon. Member suggesting that people should commit an offence when he uses the words "if they are permitted"? I do not follow his argument.

Mr. McQuarrie: The police do not cover all movements, nor do members of a local authority.

Mr. Maxton: What about an MP?

Mr. McQuarrie: An hon. Member who wishes to do that can be released from his duties to allow him to do so.

Mr. Maxton: If the hon. Member is saying that the police can already remove people, why does he support the new clauses? Surely they are unnecessary.

Mr. McQuarrie: I have not suggested that the police have the authority to remove people. I am saying that a byelaw might exist under which people could be moved. I am trying to drive home the fact that caravans should not be parked on a site on which children play. If that is allowed, not only is a caravan on a picnic site, but a car is parked there. The car will be driven to town to pick up the papers and the messages whereas the caravan will probably not be moved for more than eight hours. The movement of the car causes the danger to children.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Member used to work in the construction industry. Let me remind him of what might happen. Let us suppose that a new toilet block is to be installed on a picnic site. A contrast will be given to a construction firm which might park a caravan for the workers. Under the new clauses, that building contractor would be committing an offence.

Mr. McQuarrie: That is the biggest nonsense that I have heard for a long time. The picnic site would not be a picnic site until the construction work had been completed.
My argument is that picnic sites should be preserved and that local authorities should, if necessary, pass byelaws to make certain types of parking on picnic sites


an offence. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that caravans and the cars towing them will not be permitted to park on picnic sites for over eight hours.

Mr. Buchan: My wrath has been allayed by the speech by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) who can always be relied upon to bring a little light fun into our proceedings. We are not talking about an isolated set of circumstances. This is not the first time that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has made suggestions about parking and travelling people. We know what he is after. It is no use the hon. Members for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and Banff and Buchan suggesting that the new clauses deal with anything other than the travelling people. A vendetta has been conducted by the hon. Member for Tayside, North for almost a decade—it certainly feels like a decade. The vendetta is always, but always, against the travelling people.
The hon. Member is not trying to provide for holidaymakers or even for caravans—they provoke a tone of contempt when he talks about them. The hon. Gentleman is in a funny situation. Tents are permissible—
It's farewell to the tent and the old caravan
To the tinker, the gipsy, the travelling man
It's farewell to the forty foot trailer".
I have no doubt that the trailer, the tent or the vendor would be permissible at Greenham common.
The new clause is nonsense. If we do not bank on the Minister rejecting the new clauses, all hope is gone. The hon. Member for Stirling seems to be the apostle of freedom; he is the man who wants to remove as many shackles as he can. It is no use him calling in aid the National Gypsy Council. I should like to know with whom on that council he has discussed the matter. It is no use pretending that the new clauses do not attack the travelling people, the gipsy and the didicoi. If the hon. Gentleman pretends that, he does not tell the truth.
Many of the settled gipsies, tinkers and didicoi are also worried about what is happening. They are the best people to deal with the problems. The hon. Member for Tayside, North tables new clauses designed to be published in the local press and to stir up feeling. We have known the hon. Gentleman for many years and we know what he is up to. Instead of doing that, he should enlist the aid of the people who know the travelling people. Sheila MacGregor is an obvious example.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) accept that the Stewart family of Blairgowrie is one of the most respected travelling families around and that members of that family regularly consult about such matters?

Mr. Buchan: I know the Stewart family extremely well. It is an honourable family and I wish that the hon. Gentleman would give some credit to what the travelling people have done for Scotland's culture. Most of the songs that I have gathered and published come from the travelling people, including the Stewarts of Blairgowrie. The hon. Gentleman should pay more attention to what they have to say and enlist their support—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has misled them if he said that the new clause would deal with the problem. We are dealing not only with the use of laybys, but with the question of relationships. There is an advisory committee,

people such as the Stewarts, and Sheila MacGregor—a member of the Stewart family—but there are also others who have objections to the National Gypsy Council.
The hon. Gentleman is the Member of Parliament for the area. He arouses anger and resentment about the travelling people, which is directed also at those settled in the area. Therefore, they naturally look for protection. The hon. Gentleman should have had enough sense to give them the right advice. He should now do the decent thing and withdraw the new clause.
A Member of Parliament should listen to advice and then exercise his judgment. Has the hon. Gentleman taken advice or has he exercised his judgment? Has he merely listened to a few people——

9 pm

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman is badly misinformed about what is happening in the Blairgowrie area. He should know that I had a meeting last Sunday with representatives of the National Gypsy Council. I had a meeting two weeks ago with John Stewart on his private site. Indeed, I am a regular visitor, finding out what is happening. I do not take advice from only one source. I use my own judgment, based on various information—including that from Double Dykes, which is no longer in my constituency.

Mr. Buchan: I was right—the hon. Gentleman is operating under his own judgment. That is the final indictment of this new clause. His judgment on this, as on many other matters, is severely flawed. He knows that the new clause is nonsense and part of a vendetta. I wish that he would drop it. He should fight for proper expenditure by his Tory council to provide sites. He should strive for the right sort of relationship with people such as the Stewarts. He should tell them that he is a Member of Parliament and that he wants to assist them, not harass them. If he did, he would be met with open arms. I hope that he will withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I was slightly alarmed to hear the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) say that if I accepted the new clause all hope was gone for Britain. However, it is an important matter and we have had an interesting debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) asked a specific question about the "No parking overnight" signs. They are merely advisory signs with no statutory backing. No offence is committed if they are ignored.
The new clause would discriminate against a specific class of road user, the trailer-caravan driver, while leaving drivers of cars, lorries and mobile campers unaffected. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) would accept that such road users could be just as great a problem as caravanners. The caravanner who stays for seven and a half hours would also be untouched by the new clause. It is difficult to understand how he would be less likely to cause a nuisance than if he stayed an hour longer.
My hon. Friend mentioned caravan drivers who needed to stay in a trunk road layby or picnic site because of a genuine emergency such as illness or vehicle breakdown. He pointed to the emergency services available. Nevertheless, such people would be penalised under my hon. Friend's proposals.
Parking is a traffic matter that can be regulated under existing road traffic legislation, which enables my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make orders for such purposes. However, any such orders would have fairly serious enforcement problems. For example, how does one prove that a caravan has been there for over eight hours?
My right hon. Friend is aware that some overnight parking of caravans occurs in trunk road laybys. I accept, therefore, that there is something of a problem, a problem about which my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) wrote to my right hon. Friend. However, the problem is usually limited to the height of the holiday season. In general, it is not excessive, and there is legislation available to deal with the situation if caravans are parked dangerously, if they are an obstruction or if they are causing litter.
There are, in addition, a number of technical problems with the new clause, some of which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) pointed out, but I will not delay the House by discussing those.
The new clause is not about the non-harassment policy—the policy of toleration—and my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) emphasised that. It would be wrong of me to debate that policy at length. The policy is that travelling people should not simply be moved on from one illegal site to another or be prosecuted for just being there. If there is room on an official site nearby, they will be asked to move to it. If there is not, and if their presence in a layby is obstructing its use to other road users or is causing other serious problems, the police and local authorities will attempt to find an alternative site in the area, to which the travellers will be asked to move and there they will be asked to remain.
As hon. Members have pointed out, the provision of sites is extremely important, and the hon. Member for Garscadden fairly paid tribute to the Government's policy in relation to the 100 per cent. financing of sites. As hon. Members have said, the identification of sites and getting sites accepted is not always easy. However, we are working closely with the local authorities to identify new sites that would be appropriate and sensible. The hon. Member for Garscadden will be interested to learn that there are now 12 sites in Scotland.
The question of picnic sites was raised, in particular, by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan. Schedule 8 to the Bill amends section 54 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 to empower general or district planning authorities to make byelaws in respect of any trunk road picnic sites managed by them. The 1967 Act will also empower countryside rangers employed by the managing authority to patrol picnic sites. I am, therefore, satisfied that adequate powers will be available to control parking on trunk road picnic areas.
I have listened carefully to everything that has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the new clause. I hope that, in the light of my explanation of the present legal position under other legislation, my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North will feel it appropriate to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Bill Walker: I have listened with care to what has been said in the debate. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), in the absence of what I judge to be any realistic policies from the Labour Front Bench,

decided to indulge in some personal abuse of myself. I am sure that when he reads the Official Report tomorrow—and if, as I believe, he has ambitions one (lay to be Secretary of State for Scotland—he will regret what he said tonight. I commend the hon. Gentleman to read carefully what he said this evening. As the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) demonstrated clearly, advice may be forthcoming, but it is necessary carefully to consider its origins and whether changing circumstances and times should change attitudes.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion on what I shall regret and what I shall not. However, does he accept my basic argument, which was at one with the Minister's, that if a caravan is blocking or obstructing a layby or motorway, if it is possible under present powers for the police to move it off and i f the owner refuses to move it, the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, as recently authoritatively interpreted by the Law Officers, gives ample powers to the police? Therefore, the new clause is not necessary whatever symbolic merits or demerits it may have.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is on good ground there, and I acknowledge that. I accept that the definition in the new clause is not clear enough. I overlooked that and in this instance I was not advised as well as I wish I had been. I make no criticism of anyone else because it is my new clause. If the drafting is not satisfactory, the fault is mine. However, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that the power of the 1967 Act has presented difficulties in dealing with problems to which the new clause is directed.
It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman has not seen the volume of correspondence which I have received on this issue and accordingly does not realise how many people have been trying genuinely to find solutions to an extremely thorny problem. In the main, those who complain are taxpayers and ratepayers. They consider that the law is not being applied evenly and fairly. As a lawyer, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, if the public believe that the law is not fair and just, it is time to become extremely concerned.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be aware that the Perth and Kinross district council and the Tayside region have expressed grave doubts about the way in which their byelaws are being exercised under existing provisions. I have volumes of correspondence on this issue and I have sent copies to the Scottish Office. The correspondence shows that their byelaws and police laws are not being exercised in a way that demonstrates that the law is fair. Bearing in mind the correspondence that I have received, I have deep reservations about my hon. Friend's comments on the adequacy of present provisions.

Mr. Michael Hirst: I may have the wrong end of the stick, but is it not right that the existing laws allow the police to take action when there is obstruction? In most instances no obstruction is caused and the police are unable or are reluctant to act because they have to show that there is obstruction and difficulty.

Mr. Walker: If a caravan is parked on a layby, there is some doubt about whether it is causing an obstruction. That is a doubtful area and one that has produced problems. However, the hon. Member for Garscadden was on strong ground when he said that the new clause, as presented and drafted, has weaknesses. I acknowledge that


and I am sorry that that is so. The new clause is an attempt to make clear to the law-abiding, taxpaying and ratepaying public that we are concerned with finding solutions to these problems and is not an attempt to cause harassment. To my knowledge, the hon. Member for Paisley, South has never acknowledged that I was instrumental in a prominent way in obtaining a change of policy on the part of the Perth and Kinross district council to ensure that there are travelling sites in Perthshire.
9.15 pm
There is only one way to solve the harassment problem—provide sufficient sites for all the travelling families. I fully support that policy. I am delighted that the Government are putting forward sufficient funds for that purpose. It is distressing that local authorities are not providing for this need, but I am not surprised at that. No one ever wants such a site next to his house. I wonder whether the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is prepared to give up some of his land for a site. If he did so, that would be a generous and positive attempt to deal with the problem. If the hon. Gentleman were to say, in reply to my point that it is difficult to find sites, that he has 500 acres and would be delighted if a small part were to be used as a site for travelling families, that would be a positive contribution, compared with some of the contributions that have been made.
The hon. Gentleman was recently in Blairgowrie. If he had talked to members of the travelling families in Blairgowrie, they would have told him that I regularly visit the private site there. I have great regard for John Stewart who runs that site, because he is attempting to find an answer to a difficult problem. He recognises the difficulties caused by anti-social people on his site. I wish that the hon. Member for Paisley, South were less romantic and more realistic about the difficulties in finding a site.
We in Perthshire are trying to find genuine answers to the problem, and we have gone a long way towards achieving that end. My questions in the past have been designed to get the local authority to change its policy. I have been successful in having that policy changed. I hope that I am as successful as a result of this debate in alerting other local authorities to their responsibility when travelling families are forced, in the absence of sites, to use laybys. There is no excuse in a civilised society for that action. Sites should be provided for those people.

Mr. Dewar: I am anxious that sites should be provided. I made that clear in my speech. I recognise the difficulties. Anyone who has dealt with this problem, even on the periphery, as I have, knows about the difficulties. I am sorry if we have misinterpreted the hon. Gentleman's motives. He must recognise that some of the exchanges in the past put the amendments in a context whereby they lent themselves to the construction we placed on them.

Mr. Walker: I accept that point. Because the measures are not drafted adequately to deal with the problem, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 16

APPLICATION FOR PRIVATE ROAD TO BECOME PUBLIC ROAD

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 8, page 16, line 28, after 'shall' insert
', subject to subsection (3A) below,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 9.

Mr. Stewart: Under the clause, a local roads authority will have to put on the list of public roads, on request, a private road that has been made up to a satisfactory standard or constructed in accordance with a construction consent and the adoption must take place within 12 months. The amendments simply make it clear that if the road has not remained up to standard at the end of the 12 months the authority need not take it on.

Mr. Maxton: I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify a case that a constituent took up with me last weekend. Houses are to be built along what is at present a privately owned back lane giving access only to garages. Half of that lane is owned by the owners of the existing houses and the other half is owned by the people who propose to build two houses in a very large garden, to which the back lane would be the main access. If that lane has to be made up to the relevant standard to be taken on by the roads authority, what obligation is there on the owners of the existing houses, who intend to oppose the building plans but may be overruled, to bring their half of the road up to the relevant standard and how can those building the new houses ensure that they do so? Most of our discussions about private roads have assumed that one owner, whether it be a building contractor or someone else, will be responsible for bringing the road up to standard. What is the position when the private road is owned by two or more parties who may be in dispute as to how it should be maintained and brought up to standard?

Mr. Stewart: Where there is a majority, the road can be required to be brought up to standard. The situation described by the hon. Gentleman, however, sounds rather complicated. I will study it in detail and ensure that he receives a written reply in due course.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 17, line 9, at end insert—
'(3A) Without prejudice to any addition made under subsection (1) or (2) above, the said subsection (1) or as the case may be (2) does not impose a duty as respects a road which within the period there allowed for such addition deteriorates to a standard below that mentioned in the said subsection (1).'.

Clause 36

CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD HUMPS BY ROADS AUTHORITY

Mr. Maxton: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 26, line 43, leave out 'or' and insert 'and'.
This amendment follows the debate in Committee last week when concern was expressed about the implication in the clause as it stands that road humps are permitted in two sets of circumstances—one in which the speed limit is 30 mph or less and one in which no such limit applies. I am sure that it is not the Government's intention to imply that humps might be permitted on a road with a speed limit


of 40, 60 or 70 mph. Indeed, concern has been expressed that even 30 mph is too high a limit and that damage could be done if vehicles hit the humps at that speed. The use of the word "or" rather than "and" suggests that humps may be placed on a road with a higher speed limit. The amendment seeks to resolve that difficulty. I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Mr. McQuarrie: I shall not delay the House long as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has put the case very clearly. I simply wish to point out that if the speed limit is not reduced there will be a danger not just to the vehicles but to the people in them. As I am sure all hon. Members know from experience, it is easy to forget that the humps are there, especially in the evening, so if the speed limit is too high there may be great danger to the occupants of the vehicle. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give serious consideration to the amendment.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) for an opportunity to explain the position. As the hon. Gentleman said, clause 36 allows a roads authority to
construct road humps in a road maintainable by them if … the road is subject to a …a speed limit … of 30 miles per hour … or … the road humps are authoritised.
In that case the roads are authorised specially by the Secretary of State.
If and when my hon. Friend decides to activate the Bill's provisions on road humps—they were the subject of a debate initiated by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) in Committee—he will ensure that regulations are made under clause 38 to prescribe construction and maintenance requirements for the humps. Such regulations will take full account of safety factors, to which my hon. Friend has referred. They will represent the control that hon. Members wish to see exercised over road humps.
The special authorisation by the Secretary of State for which the Bill provides relates to exceptional circumstances—for example, where the regulations are not to be complied with for any reason or, in theory, where the road is not subject to a 30 mph speed limit. The point of the subsection is to deal with the exceptional circumstances that might arise and where it would be sensible to allow for the construction of road humps.

Mr. Craigen: I am grateful to the Minister. I take it that he is giving a wink and a nod so that, when the House considers the regulations, he will bear in mind points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) as well as the contribution by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). The hon. Gentleman knows that I believe that there should not be a proliferation of road humps all over the country.

Mr. Stewart: I am happy to give the assurance asked for by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). We should clearly expect there to be few road humps. I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) will accept that his amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister's answer is unsatisfactory. I cannot imagine circumstances in which road humps will be put on to de-limited roads, but if that is done we would

be creating a dangerous circumstance. I am unhappy about the outcome of our discussions, but at this time of the evening there are insufficient hon. Members in the House for it to be practical to force the amendment to a Division. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 51

PLANTING OF TREES, SHRUBS AND GRASS OR OTHER PLANTS BY PERSON OTHER THAN ROADS AUTHORITY

Sir Hector Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 34, line 43, at end insert—
'(1A) The roads authority may authorise advertising and information signs within the highway boundary, subject to such conditions as the authority may specify in the authorisation.'.
Amendment No. 2 deals with signs within the highway boundary. I had hoped to mention cattle grids, as my hon. Friend was very sympathetic about my views on cattle grids last week and has something constructive to say about them this week. Perhaps he will be able to work that into his remarks.
I am not quite clear whether it is a law or a Scottish Development Department regulation that one cannot have advertising signs within the highway boundary, in the area between the road surface and the boundary fence. In the old days—and frequently nowadays—the verge between the road surface and the boundary is perhaps only 3 or 4 ft. wide. I accept that it would be dangerous to erect advertising signs on that piece of grass. However, now that we have extensive dual carriageways and motorways, the highway boundary extends 40 or 50 yds from the road surface. It seems a pity that that area of ground should be sterilised, unable to be devoted to anything other than growing trees or grass, which costs so much to cut. Surely, it would be advantageous to those who are using
the roads——

Mr. Donald Stewart: I think that the hon. Gentleman is in error to think that it is illegal to erect advertising signs on roads. As far I recall, unless the law has been changed, signs can be erected, but planning authority is required in each case. If that is allowed, there is no difficulty.

Sir Hector Monro: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. If someone applies to the planning authority and the highway authority to put an advertising sign within the highway boundary on a trunk road, he is met by the celebrated quotation from the Scottish Development Department, "It is not in the interests of road safety." Irrespective of what the situation is, as a matter of principle there is no advertising within the highway boundary.
I am making a suggestion, which I am sure the Minister will treat favourably, that extensive highway boundaries 40 or 50 yds from the road surface, with great sweeping curves on dual carriageways, can be used occasionally for helpful advertising. We are not dealing with road signs—that is a different kettle of fish, and they are allowed. It is better that the hotel and service signs, which could be of great value to motorists on both motorways and trunk roads, are placed within the highway boundary when it is safe to do so and when it is to obvious advantage.
At present, because of the strict interpretation of the law—although there are one or two exceptions—the applicant who has a hotel or a restuarant, or other valuable services to offer to motorists, has to find a farmer who will accept advertising in his field outside the highway boundary—that is, just across the fence. We are putting a burden on people with hotels who are giving useful services when they have to find a farmer who will allow them to do that. He may be a tenant farmer, with a landlord. However, if one could put the sign just across the fence, inside the highway boundary, that would be far simpler and more effective.
I am asking my hon. Friend the Minister to take a more flexible attitude to the whole issue and to allow the planning authority and the highway authority to authorise signs within the highway boundary where there is no danger to road traffic and where the signs would be helpful to motorists looking for hotels and other services.
I am encouraged, because in the clause the Minister is urging individuals to plant trees within the highway boundary. I think that a motorist would prefer to run into a hotel sign than an oak tree. My hon. Friend cannot be saying that it is more dangerous to have hotel signs than oak trees. Therefore, the principle is demolished. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that everything that I have said is in the context of road safety. Where it is safe to put a hotel sign or other advertising signs of value to motorists within the highway boundary, one should be allowed to do so. Of course, advice would be given by the planning authority and the highway authority. My amendment would remove what appears to be a detail that invariably comes from Edinburgh. All that I am asking for is flexibility. I cannot see why on earth my hon. Friend should not accept what I am trying to do.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I support the amendment. The matter was brought home to me during the past four weeks by a case in my constituency. The Minister for Transport visited Alford to open a new transport museum, which was funded partly by Grampian regional council, which is also the roads authority. Part of the point of putting the museum in Alford was that it was not on the main tourist route and it was anxious to develop attractions to bring people to the town. Recently they have also developed a small gauge railway and opened a country park. Although Alford is not on the main route and although the main funding agency is the regional council, which is also the roads authority, it is unable to put up a sign on the road from Aberdeen to point out these attractions.

Mr. Maxton: I must contradict that view. If the hon. Gentleman travelled to Glasgow, particularly to visit the Burrell collection, he would find that on all the routes entering Glasgow there are large signs, which were erected by the roads authority, directing people to it. The Burrell collection is not owned by the roads authority but comes under the control of Glasgow district council.

Mr. Bruce: I am interested to hear that, and I shall be interested to hear how the Minister reconciles those facts. The managers of the transport museum told me that they were not allowed to put up signs to encourage traffic into the area, which will not wash its face and recover its ratepayers' money unless it attracts about 20,000 visitors a year.
I believe that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has that matter and the general principle of advertising in mind. It is difficult for an area to put itself on the tourist map and to attract people away from traditional routes, if it is not allowed to advertise its attractions. It would be beneficial to advertise them and it should be encouraged.
I hope that one day there will be a bypass round Inverurie. I regret that the Minister recently advised me that it would be a year later than when he last wrote to me. The traders in the towns around which bypasses have been built—this is true of all towns with bypasses—are understandably anxious that they may lose trade when the bypass opens. Bypasses are basically in the best interests of everybody. If people who are touring turn off a bypass into a town, they will get the double benefit of a town, free from great trucks pounding through its high street and with a quiet and pleasant shopping atmosphere.

Mr. Craigen: When the Kessock bridge opened, the people of Beauly insisted on signposting their bypass. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not confusing advertising with information. It is important that there are information signs, but I would be wary about the sort of advertising hoardings that may be inflicted on some rural areas.

Mr. Bruce: That is a fair point. I hope that the hon. Member for Dumfries will clarify his position on that point when he replies. I do not believe that Coca-Cola signs should be erected along the highway. From the speech that the hon. Member for Dumfries made, I do not think that that was in his mind.

Mr. Craigen: It may be in someone else's mind.

Mr. Bruce: That may be a problem with the drafting of the clause, but the principle is that information and advertising are not entirely separable. If I am talking about the attractions of a town and naming hotels—saying that it has a three-star hotel which has good food—that is valid information because it is relevant to that community and will attract people into the town to use the services. It is a specific information advertisement for a service in that locality. I should not support general hoarding advertising which advertises a product that one can obtain anywhere. I make that distinction.
Those communities that are trying to attract additional tourist business and are not on the main routes are disadvantaged by their inability to give proper advance warning of what they offer at the point at which people could divert to take advantage of them.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am surprised that the hon. Member is raising the point about towns not being able to give proper direction signs. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) gave the example of the Burrell collection in Glasgow. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) there is Haddo house which was taken over by Grampian regional council. There are signs on all the main routes throughout the constituency directing people to Haddo house. That is also true of Pitmedden, which is a National Trust property, and other National Trust properties. They are in his constituency, and the signs have been erected by Grampian regional council.

Mr. Bruce: I accept that point, but those signs are not on the roadside verges, from which they are specifically precluded. They are on private ground or have been


negotiated in some other way. The point is not that they are not there but that they are selective. Some people can have them and some cannot. There should be a consistent policy.
I was quoting an example, which I believe is rather ironic, of the development that has been funded by the regional council, which is the roads authority, which is not even adequately advertised within the town. It is difficult to find the museum and Alford is not a big place.
I believe that the argument behind the amendment of the hon. Member for Dumfries has considerable merit. One would assume that the local roads authority has some understanding of road safety and could be expected to take responsible and reasonable decisions. It should be the right body to determine whether these signs should be erected. In that spirit, I should like to hear the Minister's response. I hope that he will be in favour of the principle behind the amendment.

Mr. Bill Walker: I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) because I recollect the debate that we finished not so long ago, when I mentioned the enormous volume of mail I had received about laybys. I have news for the House: I have an equal volume of mail on the subject of signposts, because, when one represents a large rural constituency, where and how one can find things is important. I shall draw the attention of the House to an example which explains clearly the distinction between advertising and information. There is a fine line to be drawn between them, but I hesitate to draw the line.
There was a problem with people coming to Perthshire who wanted to find Glenshee and the chairlift. If one was driving from the south with a map on one's lap looking for Glenshee, the probability is that one would pick the wrong Glenshee because there are two in Perthshire. If the map is folded, it is possible that the first Glenshee that one sees is to the north-west of Perth, whereas of course the Glenshee with the chairlift is to the north-east of Perth.
Fortunately, I was able to persuade my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the difficulties when he was the Minister responsible by getting him to look at a map. That was after nearly two years' debate on the problem of tourists finding this chairlift. Tourists use the chairlifts in summer so that they can walk on the top of the mountain. It was eventually agreed that the chairlift be properly signposted. That could be regarded as advertising because the chairlift is privately run.
9.45 pm
There is what I might describe as a hard-nosed attitude which describes everything in terms of road safety. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries that there is no logical reason why, if the planting of trees is permitted, the use of signs for information and advertising is not permitted. If we want to encourage the tourist industry, which is one of the massive revenue earners for Scotland, we must adopt the realistic approach that we once adopted in regard to large industrial complexes. John Brown Engineering, for example, which can be seen miles away, was never refused permission to advertise where it was.
I am not suggesting that we have hoardings all over the place; nor is my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries. We must introduce some sanity into the use of wide road verges for advertising so that tourist facilities can be

developed and attract more people. The last thing that we want is people driving up the A9 and not stopping at the delightful facilities of Scone palace and other places which are just off the A9. We want to be certain that people know that such places exist. They will be able to do so only if we use the wide verges.

Mr. Maxton: There has been some confusion over this matter, as I understand that there are a variety of signs on roads which relate to specific attractions. I have already mentioned the magnificent Burrell collection in Glasgow, which I gather is now the largest tourist attraction in Scotland. Ministers, who tend to come from Edinburgh, will find a large sign on the M8 right into the centre of Glasgow, directing them to that collection.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) rightly pointed out that there are a variety of signs on the sides of roads for many National Trust properties. I know that Hopetown house is well signposted. There is more general advertising for a town's historic attractions. On the A74 just before Ecclefechan there is a large sign advertising the birthplace of Thomas Carlyle. Perhaps not many people know who Thomas Carlyle was and want to visit Ecclefechan for that purpose, but there is still a sign. Blantyre has a sign which makes it clear that it is the birthplace of David Livingstone.

Mr. Home Robertson: There is no sign for the birthplace of Keir Hardie.

Mr. Maxton: It is one of my great complaints that no notice is taken of Keir Hardie's birthplace, although I gather that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is trying to resolve that problem. My point is that signs are already used to direct tourists to attractions. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made a point that shows bad management on the part of roads authorities rather than their not being allowed to erect signposts. The Strathallan air museum is a privately owned concern which is close to the constituency of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and in which he should be interested.

Mr. Bill Walker: It is not in my constituency.

Mr. Maxton: The museum is one of the tourist attractions of the hon. Gentleman's constituency and it is advertised on the main road north. It is a tourist attraction in the general area of Perth and north Tayside. There are signs to it throughout the villages that lead to it. Those signs are on the roadside. That is an example of the fact that it is already permissible to erect signs.

Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman had driven along the A9 recently he would know that since the bypass round Auchterarder came into use one can no longer see the sign to which he refers unless one can see through buildings.

Mr. Maxton: I have travelled down that road recently, but I cannot be sure what the present situation is. Certainly there were signs on the old A9 and there are certainly signs thereafter on the road leading to the Strathallan air museum, giving the direction.
I do not see what the argument is about. It is already permissible to put up signs. Why should we permit a measure designed in the main to permit private enterprise advertising on the side of the road, which can only damage the view and the tourist industry?
My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is showing me his watch, perhaps


implying that I am taking too long. I am a member of the Finance Bill Committee, and the length of this debate will not make much difference to me.
The amendment would detract from the tourist attraction of an area. It would lead to the erection of hoardings and signs which many of us would find very unattractive.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I welcome the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Munro). It may be significant that the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and myself have in common either the existence of bypass communities, or the new A9.
First, I shall refer to the bypass communities and to the opening of the Kessock bridge. Beauly is one example, but others will follow as the road is developed into Sutherland and Caithness. There is a great deal of local frustration because people may not put up informative or advertising signs. Such signs could lead tourists off the main road—tourists who would be looking for the facilities and environment which places such as Beauly have to offer. Because there are at present insufficient advertising and informative signposts showing what is available, the tourists drive on north and the local area loses revenue.
I have another reason for supporting the amendment. If one considers the stretches of the A9 beyond Inverness and through Easter Ross, one can see examples of what has been described. There is a considerable expanse of land adjoining the highway boundary. Time and again, local people make strong objections because they wish to advertise a restaurant, hotel or other amenity or facility there and they are legally prohibited from doing so. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) that the result of the amendment would be that large hoardings would be put up. People in the Highlands want to make the Highlands as attractive as possible in order to induce tourists to visit them. They are not likely to cut off their nose to spite their face by erecting signs along the whole length of the A9. The hon. Gentleman represents a Glasgow constituency. He is in no position to say that the Highland regional authorities——

Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) spends his holidays in Arran.

Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman is certainly a sight, and I am sure that we could raise money in the Highlands by encouraging people to view him.
There is no desire to erect large hoardings, but there is a definite and genuine desire for a positive form of advertising which is contained and sensible. That would make more sense than the present approach, and I hope that the Minister will be positive and constructive. I certainly give the amendment my whole-hearted support.

Mr. Home Robertson: Having told my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) that he was going on too long, I must now defend him against some ludicrous remarks, especially from alliance Members who, characteristically, support the hon. Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). If hon. Members want more information to be available for tourists in their constituencies or elsewhere,

by all means let the House encourage roads authorities to provide such information. Indeed, roads authorities already have that power. Dozens of examples have already been given, and I shall not prolong the debate by citing examples in my own constituency, where the roads authority erected signs directing people to facilities, attractions and so on. It is all properly planned, it looks tidy and it imparts information.
If such provision is inadequate in a given area, the hon. Member concerned should make representations to the appropriate roads authority, the Scottish Development Department or whoever. The amendment states:
The roads authority may authorise advertising and information signs within the highway boundary, subject to … conditions".
It specifically mentions the roads authority, and it appears that the planning authority will have no say at all, yet in my part of the world the two authorities are different.
The hon. Member for Dumfries said that it would be better for someone to drive into a Coca-Cola sign than into an oak tree. That says a lot about the hon. Gentleman's sense of aesthetics, but whether he likes it or not, the amendment uses the word "advertising". Therefore, it would become possible—in some areas it might well be encouraged—for people to festoon the road sides with advertising hoardings for this, that or the other.

Sir Hector Monro: Before the hon. Gentleman goes quite bonkers with his ridiculous remarks, does he not realise that the amendment "may" authorise an advertising sign? The local authority will not authorise the sort of thing which he has in mind. The hon. Gentleman must be sensible about this constructive amendment, not totally foolish and irresponsible.

Mr. Home Robertson: The wording of the amendment is abundantly clear:
The roads authority may authorise advertising … signs
and so on. Presumably that is what the hon. Gentleman means to happen. I do not think that the Minister wants to see the tourist or other routes in Scotland desecrated in that way any more than I do. Therefore, I merely wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart and, I hope, the Minister in rejecting this ludicrous amendment.

Mr. Ancram: I thought for an awful moment that I was finding strange bedfellows on the Opposition side of the House. I listened with great care and attention to what the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) had to say to see whether there was anything that I would have to endorse. As I, like many other hon. Members, failed to understand much of what he said, that danger did not arise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) began by referring to hedgehog ramps in cattle grids. Although this matter is not before the House at the moment, it will be included in a circular sent to the authorities, and I hope that his efforts have not been wasted.
Our debate on the amendment is not a new one. I recollect many of these points being made during the passage of the Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Scotland) Act. Some of my hon. Friends made points then as forcibly as they have this evening, if not more so. This does not detract from an important subject. My hon. Friend——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Roads (Scotland) Bill [Lords] and the Animal Health and Welfare Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Lang.]

Royal Assent

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
1. Somerset House Act 1984
2. Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984
3. Registered Homes Act 1984
4. Dentists Act 1984
5. Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Act 1984
6. Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984
7. Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
8. County Courts Act 1984
9. Housing and Building Control Act 1984
10. Food Act 1984
11. Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984
12. London Regional Transport Act 1984
13. Rates Act 1984
14. Barclays Bank Act [984.

Roads (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Ancram: This is an important subject and one of real concern to many hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries said that the Scottish Office seemed to have a veto, and that it talked always about road safety. However, in the person of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Scottish Office is the roads authority and would be the roads authority to whom this amendment would apply. Therefore, it is for my right hon. Friend to decide, as the roads authority, what the policy should be on motorways and trunk roads. Obviously safety is an important factor.
I take my hon. Friend's point that trees on the side of the road are solid objects if one happens to run into them. However, signposts can be dangerous objects to run into as well. One of the important considerations in putting up signposts is to ensure that the material from which they are made does not splinter. If a car were in collision with a wooden sign, that could be a lethal object, so we must consider safety when erecting them.
It is worth the House reflecting on the fact that both sign owners—if they were privately erected signs—and the roads authority could be held liable for damages in the event of a sign being hit. However, it is not just the danger of impact or collision that is important but the danger that can arise from distraction. After all, unlike trees and bushes, signs are there to be looked at and read. They can be a potential source of accidents precisely because they can distract the attention of a driver from the road in front of him if he reads what is written on them. When hon. Members move amendments that could lead to a considerable number of signs in certain circumstances they should consider this factor.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries may envisage in his constituency a few signs for hotels and services and he may believe that they can do no harm, but if we agreed to relax our policy on signs, we should soon face pressure to allow advertising by the roadside for all types of purposes throughout the country. How will a roads authority discriminate and decide who shall be allowed to erect a sign and who shall not when trying to prevent the dangers of distraction?
Surely we do not want our roads to look like some of the roads along which I have driven in the United States, where streams of signs advertise hotels and services, all of which have equal claims on advertising rights. The effect of that on the environment and safety would be considerable.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I have followed my hon. Friend's argument carefully. Surely the logic of his argument is that we should not allow vehicles to carry advertisements on their sides when they travel on motorways, on the ground that people might try to read them and they might constitute a danger. We already have that distraction. Perhaps the way round the problem is to employ old-fashioned hand carts, for example, to advertise and cause even more of a distraction. The Minister's argument does not stand up.

Mr. Ancram: Any mobile sign involving planning permission must be off the curtilage of the highway. I know of an example near my hon. Friend's constituency.

It is no answer to the argument that distractions are dangerous to say that distractions already exist and that therefore we should allow more distractions. I am expressing the argument as fairly as I can because the matter is important, but we must see it in perspective.

Sir Peter Mills: I hesitate to intervene in a Scottish debate, but I should like to use an illustration from my constituency. Some cows wore jackets advertising a certain cheese. The jackets had to be taken off because they distracted the motorists.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) for that helpful example. I hope to hear more from him during Scottish debates in future.

Mr. Bill Walker: An interesting comparison can be drawn with what happens when a low-flying aircraft flies nearby without advance warning. Surely that is a great distraction to a driver.

Mr. Ancram: When I was driving on the A9 once an aircraft flying lower than my car passed me and I nearly drove off the road. I accept that that is a distraction, but it is no argument for allowing other distractions.
I acknowledge the need in Scotland to promote tourism and to inform road users about the services and attractions available near roads. For that reason, in conjunction with the Scottish tourist board, the Scottish Development Agency has introduced new types of authorised traffic signs, for bypass communities for example. The hon. Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) have raised the problems of bypass communities. They know that last autumn we conducted an experiment with the "strongbow" sign. The results were good and we are providing the signs as fast as resources allow. I believe that they have been welcomed wherever they have been erected. They provide the sort of information for which the tourist is looking—basic information that they can leave the road and re-join it later without having to backtrack and that there are services available in the bypass community.
In conjunction with the tourist board, we are always looking for ways to promote tourism through providing the right sort of information on signs. I believe that what we have done so far will be widely welcomed by road users and those who provide the road services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries mentioned hotels. He knows that I have been interested in that matter for some time. My Department is discussing with the Scottish tourist board the possibility of including more information on the official traffic signs for hotels, possibly including hotel names and classifications that meet certain criteria of size and quality. However, such developments must, of need, await the introduction of the tourist board's proposed system of classification of Scottish hotels. Until then, we cannot have any reasonable way of assessing which categories can be advertised. I understand that that exercise is likely to take a couple of years.
I hope that I have shown that I am concerned about the problems faced by those trying to provide tourist services. I am trying to meet them in a way that is consistent with the principles that I set out earlier, which are basically those of safety. My hon. Friend knows that we are not wholly inflexible about advertising signs. For example, the sign for the Auchencastle hotel near the A74 has,


within the last few months, been allowed to remain on trunk road land because it is a long way back from the road and does not constitute a hazard to road safety. We are prepared to consider similar cases on their merits.
While I doubt whether I can give my hon. Friend total satisfaction—I await the day that I can achieve that—I hope that I have said sufficient for him to appreciate that we are seriously considering the problem and that we are not inflexible. We are trying to find a way to supply the sort of information that he seeks, which is also consistent with the principles that I have outlined. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Sir Hector Monro: We have had a valuable debate and I welcome the support from all sides of the House, and especially that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and the hon. Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). It is a serious matter and I deprecate the flippant approach of some Opposition Members.
I am pleased to have the assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister about cattle grids. That will be warmly welcomed by those concerned for small animals. The hon. Members for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) went beyond the bounds of comprehension. To think that I would want advertising hoarding all along main roads is ridiculous——

Mr. Maxton: rose——

Sir Hector Monro: No doubt the hon. Gentleman is going to say something even more stupid.

Mr. Maxton: I merely wish to point out that it was not I who raised the question of American-type hoarding along the sides of roads—it was the Minister who said that that would be a danger if the amendment was accepted.

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman went more than far enough in his own remarks. I am a past chairman of the planning committee and I have served on the National Trust and the Nature Conservancy Council. Therefore, it must be obvious that I would not support any form of general advertising hoarding, and I never said that I would.
10.15 pm
Opposition Members do not understand how planning authorities work. They are responsible for giving authority—even when a matter must also be approved by the Scottish Development Agency—on issues affecting trunk roads, and they would not approve signs that were out of taste or out of place, and I am not advocating that they should. The amendment uses the word "may" rather than "shall", and I need not remind Labour Members who are expert in discussing the difference between "may" and "shall" and "have" and "have not" of what "may" means in the context of the amendment.
Opposition Members also fail to appreciate that the amendment is drafted in relation to highway boundaries. It is clear that the signs which, they say, would distract people, could be only a foot the other side of the fence. Apparently signs would be all right there, whereas inside the highway boundary they would be all wrong. The issue

of distraction does not arise because the planning authority must have given approval for a sign to be in a field, and there could be the same number of signs along any 50-mile stretch of road. The same would apply under my amendment. In any event, the signs could be harder to read by being further away, outside the highway boundary.
Nobody has explained how Burrell gets away with it. I am delighted with the success of the Burrell exhibition. I am all for flexibility. I only comment that it happened when requests for other signs were being turned down.

Mr. Ancram: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not having explained the point of the Burrell sign. I understand that so many people were going to the Burrell gallery and were finding it impossible to find the place that, for reasons of traffic regulation, Strathclyde region decided that a sign was necessary.

Sir Hector Monro: I know of a few hotels which could put up a good case for saying that they, too, would do extremely well if they could have some more advertising. I appreciate what the Minister says, which proves that there is flexibility of approach. I should be glad to know whether Glasgow district council approached the Minister for approval to erect signs.
I gather that there is no law to prevent advertising signs from being placed on trunk roads within the highway boundary and that the decision is for the Secretary of State. That gives enormous encouragement, because it means that my right hon. Friend can be flexible and could change his mind tomorrow. It is good to know that there is riot a statutory requirement needing legislation to change it.
The Minister made my point—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members would shut up, I might be able to make myself heard. The Minister pointed out that advertising signs collapse much more easily than solid oak trees. If the Minister welcomes the planting of trees within the highway boundary, then easily collapsible highway signs need not worry him from the point of view of road safety. I am totally in favour of trees. Indeed, when 1 ran my planning committee, I helped to get trees planted alongside the A74. I have not heard of vehicles running into them; they are well up on the bank, where the advertising signs would be.
It is said that we have not had the usual Committee stage, when this whole issue could have been thrashed out in detail. It is now too late to draft an amendment which would fulfil the wishes of hon. Members and meet all objections, bearing in mind the narrow issue of the principle of the amendment, although that issue has been widened enormously by Opposition Members.
I was pleased to hear the flexible approach which the Minister adopted. It is clear that he has taken on board the arguments that have been adduced and that it is not the Secretary of State's right by law to prevent such advertising. That means that, in future, my right hon. Friend could take a different approach and could help the hotels and other tourist attractions to fulfil in Scot land what they are there to do.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 65

REGULATION OF DRIVERS OF HORSEDRAWN CARTS ETC.

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 44, line 22, leave out '16' and insert '—(a) 14'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 11.

Mr. Ancram: I hope that the two amendments will at least find favour with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). They represent the response that I promised last week to his plea for a relaxation on the total prohibition on the driving on roads of horsedrawn and suchlike vehicles by children under the age of 16. It is now proposed that children between 14 and 16 should be able to drive such vehicles provided that they are supervised by someone of at least 18. This is as far as we can go for road safety reasons. I remind the House that prior to the introduction of the Bill the age limit was 14 and that we are returning to that age as the bottom line. It must be remembered that the provision applies to vehicles that are being driven on a road and not on land on which there is no public right of passage and, therefore, no hazard to any road users. I hope that the amendments will commend themselves to the House.

Sir Hector Monro: I thank the Minister for listening sympathetically to my remarks last week and for fulfilling his promise to table amendments. The Government's amendments have gone most of the way towards meeting my wishes.

Mr. Bill Walker: I thank the Minister, too, for I supported my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on this issue last week. The Government's amendments will be appreciated in my constituency where the driving of horsedrawn and suchlike vehicles has become a growth activity.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 44, line 23, at end insert—
; or
(b) 16 years of age (not being such child as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above) to drive that vehicle on a road other than under the immediate supervision of a person of 18 years of age or more".—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 79

POWERS OF ROADS AUTHORITIES AND BRIDGE OWNERS TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 53, line 4, leave out '13(7)' and insert '14(1)'.
This is a minor consequential amendment arising from our discussion of clauses 13 and 14 in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 93

PROTECTION OF ROAD USERS FROM DANGERS NEAR A ROAD

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 64, line 8, after 'road', insert'—(a)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 14.

Mr. Ancram: Clause 93 is part of the armoury of powers which roads authorities may invoke to counter dangers to road users. An intervention of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) on Second Reading brought to light the fact that the clause is less effective for this purpose than it might be because it does not apply to buildings, a term which, as defined in the Bill, is widely embracing. The amendments will remedy the omission by enabling roads authorities to take action to protect road users from any type of danger from land, including buildings, near a road. Any more permanent remedial works that are required can be taken under the appropriate statutes such as building legislation relating to Scotland.

Mr. McQuarrie: Amendment No. 14 provides:
(b) and is a building constitutes a danger to road users and there is no other such provision as aforesaid, they shall under this subsection take such steps by way of enclosure or screening,".
I do not find favour grammatically with
and is a building constitutes a danger to road users".
With respect to the draftsman of the amendment, it should
either read "and as a building constitutes a danger to road users" or "and is a building which constitutes a danger to road users". I hope that my hon. Friend will provide a clear interpretation of the correct definition and confirm that the drafting is correct or accept that either "as" or "which" should be inserted.

Mr. Ancram: Clause 93 states:
anything which is … near to a road but is not itself a building constitutes a danger to road users".
The amendments set out alternative provisions—amendment No. 13 inserts paragraph (a) and amendment no. 14 inserts paragraph (b). It is perhaps difficult to understand this point when looking at the Bill as drafted, but if the amendments are accepted paragraphs (a) and (b) will become much clearer in the context of the text. The parts leading to and coming from paragraphs (a) and (b) will make more sense, because the lead-in and lead-out will apply to the circumstances dealt with in paragraphs (a) and (b). I hope that with that assurance my hon. Friend will find that the clause is properly drafted.

Mr. Dewar: I cannot resist the temptation to offer my warmest congratulations to the Under-Secretary of State on the fact that he clarified that point.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 14 in page 64, line 12, leave out 'as' and insert—
;
(b) and is a building constitutes a danger to road users and there is no other such provision as aforesaid, they shall under this subsection take such steps by way of enclosure or screening,
as".—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 95

DEPOSIT OF MUD FROM VEHICLES ON ROADS

Mr. Maxton: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 66, line 3, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
Last week, the Committee debated the subject of farmers depositing mud on the roads, the speed at which 13, in—they should remove the mud and the dangers created for road users in the countryside. I and my hon. Friend the


Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) put forward cogent arguments showing why farmers should be asked to remove mud as quickly as possible or, as I said, immediately.
I was beaten on that point, and I accept that. If mud, dung or anything else has been deposited on a road by farmers, especially wealthy farmers, the local authority should be reimbursed the cost it has incurred in clearing the road. It should not be a matter of thinking that the local authority can clear the road if it wishes. We know that in most cases if the legislation says "may" the local authority will not bother to clear the road. A statutory obligation should be imposed on local authorities to charge anyone who deposits mud from a vehicle for the cost of clearing the road. Conservative Members always claim to be the defenders of ratepayers, but I am sure that none of them will support me in defending ratepayers against the farmers. That is a different matter. Measures should be taken to ensure that ratepayers do not have to carry the cost caused by those who commit the offence of depositing mud on the roads.

Mr. McQuarrie: I support the amendment. I have conducted a difficult campaign against my local authority and some of my constituents to remove mud from roads. Mud is regularly dropped so that roads are narrowed to the width of a cart lane. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State should give serious consideration to the amendment. It is important that mud is removed from roads. A hazard is caused when mud forms after rain. When travelling in my constituency after rain, my vehicle has skidded over the road, and I am sure that the same thing has happened to my constituents. My hon. Friend should consider replacing the word "may" with "shall".

Mr. James Nicholson: In my experience, building contractors are just as guilty of depositing muck on the roads. Perhaps they could set an example to the farmers in this respect. I support the amendment.

Mr. McQuarrie: With respect, I did not mention farmers. I only mentioned the depositing of mud on the roads. I entirely agree that building contractors often do the same. I was simply interested in getting the mud off the road and making the obligation enforceable as the amendment provides.

Sir Hector Monro: I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will resist the amendment. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) lost the argument last week and it would be a great pity if he were allowed to win it now. I shall not go into the details again, but one must be practical when dealing with agricultural operations. When one is hauling silage or potatoes or turnips out of the fields and into the farmsteading 20 or 30 times a day one cannot stop each time to clean all the mud off the road. The important thing is to get it cleared before nightfall in case it freezes or becomes slippery due to rain and oncoming traffic cannot see it. I believe that the clause as drafted is about right and brings home to all concerned their responsibilities in this matter. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will leave it at that.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) for his support for the clause as drafted.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for 13anff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) has been confused by his pair and, having listened to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) over a long period, I cannot say that I am surprised. The amendment refers not to the necessity of removing mud or other material from the road but to the collection by the roads authority or the district council of expenses reasonably incurred in removing it. In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Cathcart on other occasions, I am surprised that he wishes to impose an additional duty on local authorities, especially one that is incapable of fulfilment. The hon. Gentleman frowns, but on reflection he will realise that the amendment makes it mandatory for district councils and roads authorities to recover those expenses. That obligation cannot be fulfilled if the person responsible for depositing the material on the road cannot be traced.
It is worth recalling that the clause refers to the deposit of any kind of material from any vehicle, not just to deposits from farm vehicles when the culprit might be easier to trace. The amendment would thus force local authorities to go out searching for people who might have dropped things on roads without any assurance of ever finding them. I do not believe that even the hon. Gentleman would wish to impose such a duty on the authorities.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it not an offence under the Road Traffic Acts to deposit mud or other material on the roads?

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman had heard the Committee debate, he would realise that under clause 95 a person in charge of a vehicle who deposits material on the road and fails to remove it as soon as reasonably practicable commits an offence. If the local authority has to remove the material from the road, the clause at present provides that it "may" recover its expenses. The amendment seeks to make that mandatory. My point is that it is dangerous to legislate in such a way that it may be impossible for the authority to carry out a mandatory duty.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister said that my hon. Friend's amendment would compel the authority to try to discover who had deposited the material, but the police must have a responsibility to do just that if the material deposited on the road constitutes a danger.

Mr. Ancram: For any offence it is for the police to find the offender, where that is practicable. We are talking about practical applications in this case. The hon. Gentleman seeks to require local authorities to recover the expenses at all costs, however long it takes. If he thinks about it, that is impractical. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment on that basis.
I am confident that roads authorities or local authorities will not miss the opportunity to recover their costs where they can do so appropriately. It may sound strange for me to say this to the hon. Member for Cathcart, but it is better to leave these matters to the discretion of the authorities rather than for us to foist duties upon them. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment on that basis.

Mr. Maxton: I shall first reply briefly to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) who suggested that I am persecuting hard-done-by farmers. That that most heavily-subsidised group of entrepreneurs should get extra protection is beyond belief.
The Minister has got it completely wrong. Clause 95(2) states:
Expenses reasonably incurred by the roads authority or by the district council and necessitated by a contravention of this section may be recovered by them from the person in default.
The important words are "in default". That means that the person has been found, taken to court and found guilty of the offence. However, I assume that a person cannot be in default in this country unless he has been found guilty of an offence in a court of law, unless the Minister is implying that someone can be found guilty in his absence, without knowing about it, and when the police do not even know who that person is. That is a remarkable supposition, but the clause says that the person concerned must be "in default".
As I read that—perhaps the Minister wishes to clarify it—the person has been found guilty in a court of law as a result of an offence that he committed and for which he has been found guilty. The local authority has incurred expenses and, in that case, the authority should get from him the costs of its work.
I am not referring, nor does the clause refer, to those cases where a person or an organisation has dropped mud or another substance on the road, because the clause does not cover them. It covers only those who are known of and who have been found guilty in a court of law. The Minister's argument does not stand up to reason. Before I take a decision on whether or not to withdraw my amendment, I hope that the Minister will reply to this point.

Mr. Ancram: I must have set a bad example in describing the previous technical amendment to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), as that gave the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) ideas about legal construction. He should have taken previous advice from his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) before speaking.
I am making a straightforward and simple point. Clause 95(1) refers to a person who fails to remove the material that has been dropped as soon as reasonably practicable committing an offence. Clearly if a roads authority or a district council incurs expenses as a result of that offence it has a right to try to recover those expenses. The only way that it can do so is when somebody "offends" under clause 95(1) because, having dropped the material, he failed to remove it. Under subsection (2) the district authority or the roads authority can recover the expenses if it wishes. However, there could be occurrences where that person was not known and not available, but was still an offender in terms of clause 95(1) because he had fulfilled the provisions of the clause. The hon. Gentleman's amendment would cover those circumstances. It would put upon local authorities and roads authorities a duty that could not be fulfilled, and as a result would be bad law. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) would advise the hon. Gentleman of that, too.

Mr. Maxton: I still do not think that the Minister is right, but the way in which we have considered the Bill—the Government wrongly tabled a series of amendments, which turned the Committee stage last week into a farce—means that we have not had sufficient

time to cover the Bill properly. This is essentially a minor technical amendment, so I have no intention of pushing it to a Division. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 96

EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES IN REPAIRING ROADS DAMAGED BY HEAVY VEHICLES ETC.

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 66, line 43, leave out from 'shall' to 'within' in line 2 on page 27 and insert
'not be commenced later than 12 months after the damage has been done unless that damage is the consequence of a particular building contract or of work extending over a long period, in which case they may, notwithstanding that such period of 12 months has elapsed, be commenced'.
Clause 96 codifies a long-standing provision whereby roads authorities may recover from those responsible unusual road maintenance costs occasioned by excessively heavy vehicles or traffic. It is our view, on reflection, that the clause is a little rigid and would not, as presently drafted, cover work such as quarrying, which might take place over a long period. The amendment is necessary to cover such circumstances and to make the clause more flexible.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 97

TRADING

Mr. Bruce: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 66, line 24 at end insert—
'(1A) No roads authority shall unreasonably withhold permission for the stationing of such stall or vehicle at convenient places adjacent to public roads, provided that adequate room is available for customers and their vehicles, the area is kept free of litter and the stall or vehicle is of tidy appearance. '.
This amendment is in the name of my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] His name is on the Order Paper. He does not appear to be here, but I assure the House that I am well able to speak for him and myself.
The purpose of the amendment is to try to inject a policy into the Bill where no policy presently exists. All hon. Members will be aware, as they drive around the country, that traders operate in laybys selling refreshments, but there is no clear policy about what terms those traders can or should operate under—whether they come under the classification mentioned by the hon. Member from Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), and should be moved on at the earliest opportunity, or whether they have a clearer right to operate.
The purpose of the amendment is to say that, where the Bill deals with trading, it should not be bureaucratic. The principle of allowing people to operate in that fashion should not be presumed against. We are aware that such refreshment bars can create problems of congestion, litter and nuisance, but if they are properly regulated and fulfil conditions that do not cause litter and congestion, they can provide a useful service. In many parts of the country that is the case.

Mr. Craigen: I understand that, just as the owner would be responsible for keeping the vehicle in a tidy condition, he would also be responsible under the amendment for keeping the area free of litter.

Mr. Bruce: That was the intention of the amendment. If anybody operates in such a way, he should be required to meet those conditions. Provided that he does, it is a reasonable proposition that he should be allowed to trade.

Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am desperately trying to work out where the amendment fits in. The Order Paper refers to page 66, line 24, and that makes no sense.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should have made that plain. I thought that Mr. Deputy Speaker had done so. There is a misprint. It should be page 67, line 14. Has the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) concluded his speech?

Mr. Bruce: The Bill leave unclear what rights those traders have. The amendment seeks to make a clear regulation so that those facilities, which do operate, will operate under proper regulations.

Mr. McQuarrie: I oppose the amendment because it is unnecessary. The Bill clearly states that such trading may not take place
except with the consent in writing of the roads authority and in accordance with such reasonable conditions as the authority think fit.
I have had wide experience in my constituency of the sort of trading that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) described. It has caused great problems in regard to discarded litter, untidiness and danger. The traders are invariably in laybys on trunk roads, and policemen cannot run after them every minute of the day.
The Government are right to suggest that it is adequate for the roads authority to lay down conditions as it thinks fit. I oppose the amendment, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will do likewise.

Mr. Ancram: I can set the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) at rest, as I shall resist the amendment. I hope that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) will withdraw it.
The amendment does not make sufficient provision for road safety. Even if all the other criteria set out in the amendment were met, road safety is not considered and the dangers of sudden manoeuvres by motorists to take advantage of the facility will still cause danger to other road users.
Secondly, the amendment includes the subjective test of what is meant by "adequate room". That could lead to considerable problems of interpretation—for example, if a mobile snack bar were popular, parking that was initially adequate might prove to be inadequate. That would raise questions about road safety and would cause dangers to road users.
Clause 97 is important. It is important that roads authorities should not have their new power under the clause restricted further. I believe that authorities will operate their powers constructively and will grant consent where there are no overriding reasons of public safety or amenity for refusing it. That will be my right hon. Friend's policy for trunk roads. We shall issue guidance to local authorities in a circular. I hope that, on that basis, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Bruce: I am interested that the Minister will issue a circular to give guidance on the matter. However, the Bill does not make it clear—the circular may clarify the position—exactly what the position will be when the Bill is enacted.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) fairly identified the problem. I do not wish to pretend that a potential problem does not exist if such trading is not regulated. Clearly, litter, traffic and road safety must be considered. I have a letter of a few years ago from the Scottish Development Department to the Grampian regional council, which shows that the council was not clear about its rights and wrongs, and that the circular did not shed light on the matter. I accept that the Minister raised some points about the drafting of the amendment, which might make it looser than it was intended to be.
In the light of what the Minister said about issuing a circular—I hope that he will make it clear that the Government recognise that such stalls will operate and want to provide a sensible framework that is fair to all parties with regard to safety and which will allow the operators to operate effectively—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 98

CONTROL OF STRAY AND OTHER ANIMALS ON ROADS

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move Government amendment No. 16, in page 68, line 3:5, at end insert—
': Provided that no such payment shall be exigible where the owner took all reasonable steps to ensure that the animal was not so left as is mentioned in subsection (1) above or, as the case may be, did not so stray as is there mentioned. '.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 17.

Mr. Ancram: These amendments will be welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) because they follow submissions that he made in Committee. As a result of the changes, the owner of an animal will not be required to make such payments if he takes all reasonable steps to ensure that his animals are not left on or stray on to the road. I hope that that meets the points that he made.

Sir Hector Monro: I want to thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I did not recognise what I said last week translated into this amendment. My hon. Friend might have explained the details of amendment No. 16. We talked about guidelines when discussing the previous amendment, and it would not be a bad idea if we had some guidelines on clause 98, which seems to leave us exactly where we were before we started discussing the Bill.

Mr. Bill Walker: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister——

Mr. Craigen: The second vote of thanks.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman was not present through most of this and the previous debate. He is unaware that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and others spoke at some length on this serious matter. I drew attention to the difficulties which were experienced in my home when my children's ponies were some miles away from their paddock. I realised the


difficulties that we would cause for people. I thank the Minister for taking such a realistic view of the representations that we made to him.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 68, line 36, at beginning insert—
'Subject to the proviso to subsection (2) above,' —[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 143

REVOCATION AND VARIATION OF CERTAIN SCHEMES AND ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 18, in page 96, line 5, after 'Where', insert '—(a)'.

No. 19, in page 96, line 5, after 'Act, insert—
; or
(b) an order under section 9 or 12 of this Act in relation to—
(i) a special road; or
(ii) a main road (within the meaning of the said section 12), which has not been opened for the purposes of through traffic,".

No. 20, in page 96, line 6, after 'road', insert 'main road,'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Clause 155

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 21, in page 104, line 22, at beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (3) below,'.

No. 22, in page 104, line 22, leave out
'and sections 35 to 40'.

No. 23, in page 104, line 26, at end insert
, and different days may be so appointed for different provisions, for different purposes and for different areas'.

No. 24, in page 104, line 27, at end insert—
'section [Restricted roads: amendment of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984] and Schedule [Restricted roads];'.

No. 25, in page 104, leave out line 29 and insert
'Schedule 10 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984' —[Mr. Ancram.]

New schedule

'RESTRICTED ROADS

Amendment of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
1. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 shall be amended in accordance with this Schedule.
2. In section 82(1) (restricted roads)—
(a) after the word "if' there shall be inserted "—(a)";
(b) for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "carriageway";
(c) for the words "200 yards" there shall be substituted the words "185 metres"; and
(d) at the end there shall be inserted the following words—"; and
(b) the road is of a classification or type specified for the purposes of this subsection in regulations made by the Secretary of State.".
3. In section 85 (traffic signs for indicating speed restrictions)—
(a) in subsection (4), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "carriageway", and for the words "200 yards" there shall be substituted the words "185 metres";
(b) in subsection (5), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "carriageway"; and

(c) after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(5A) In any proceedings for a contravention of section 81 of this Act, a certificate of an officer of the Secretary of State that a road is of a specified classification or type shall be sufficient evidence of the facts certified; and a document purporting to be such a certificate and to be signed by such an officer shall be deemed to be such certificate unless the contrary is shown"
4. In section 134(2) (provisions as to regulations), after the word "sections" there shall be inserted the words "82(1),".

Transitional provision

5. Where, immediately prior to the commencement of this Schedule—
(a) a road is or is deemed to be a restricted road for the purposes of section 81 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and that road would, apart from this paragraph, cease to be a restricted road in consequence of the first regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 82(1) of that Act as amended by paragraph 2 above; or
(b) a road is not and is not deemed to be a restricted road for those purposes and that road would, apart from this paragraph, become a restricted road in consequence of those regulations,
the roads authority may, prior to the commencement of the regulations, make an order specifying the road, and the road shall, notwithstanding the commencement of the regulations, continue to be, or to be deemed to be, a restriced road or, as the case may be, a road which is not a restricted road until such time as the order is superseded, in relation to that road, by a direction under section 82(2) of that Act (directions making specified roads restricted or not restricted) or an order under section 84(1) of that Act (power to fix speed limits).'.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 8

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 119, line 38, leave out '12' and insert '7.62'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 27 to 38.

Mr. Stewart: These are technical amendments requested by British Rail.

Mr. Craigen: They are indeed technical, but they raise some interesting questions. Why are these amendments proposed now? What co-operation was there between the Scottish Office and British Rail? We have known about the proposed change from imperial to metric measure for some time, so we were not taken aback by that. From what I heard on the grapevine, it seemed to me that British Rail would face some considerable problems with its bridges and at one stage with the gradients, if the amendments were not accepted.
Why do we have these amendments now, months later and after the Bill has been through another place? This is not the first time that British Rail has faced problems with roads. I believe that it has just made several complaints to the Scottish Office about the draft provisional order to authorise Lothian regional council to construct and maintain the western relief road. I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Scotland here because if he had grasped the nettle about that road and instituted a public inquiry, instead of leaving it to the tortuous procedure of the parliamentary commissioners, a lot of time and money would have been saved in the Edinburgh area.
********************Audit***************


I hope that the Minister will answer those points. The amendments are technical, but they raise some interesting questions about how the Bill has been prepared.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Section 41 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 presently defines separate minimum arch dimensions of railway bridges over turnpike roads, public carriage roads and private roads and the Bill proposes to amalgamate the turnpike and public carriage roads provisions into a "public road" minimum clearance for railway bridges. However, British Rail has recently drawn attention to the fact that the obsolete turnpike standards, instead of the smaller public carriage road dimensions to which BR operates, have been used in schedule 8. That is why the amendment comes so late.
If allowed to stand without these technical amendments, the amended section 41 of the 1845 Act could increase BR's costs when rebuilding existing bridges since they might have to be reconstructed with a larger arch for vehicle clearance.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) said, these are technical amendments. They were not spotted until recently but——

Mr. Craigen: If the Minister tells me that BR is now happy, I shall approve the amendments.

Mr. Stewart: I am glad to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 27, in page 119, line 39, leave out '4' and insert '3.66'.

No. 28, in page 119, line 41, leave out '6' and insert '4.57'.

No. 29, in page 119, line 42, leave out '4' and insert '3.05'.

No. 30, in page 119, line 47, leave out '4' and insert '3.66'.

No. 31, in page 120, line 1, leave out '3' and insert '2.74'.

No. 32, in page 120, line 2, leave out '5' and insert '4.27'.

No. 33, in page 120, line 4, leave out '30' and insert '20'.

No. 34, in page 120, line 9, leave out '11/2' and insert ' 1. 22'.

No. 35, in page 120, line 9, leave out '1' and insert '0. 91'.

No. 36, in page 120, line 13, leave out '12' and insert '7.62'.

No. 37, in page 120, line 13, leave out '4' and insert '3.66'.

No. 38, in page 120, line 15, leave out '30' and insert '20'.

No. 39, in page 184, line 30, at end insert—
'(42A) In section 134(4) (provisions as to regulations), for the words "or section" there shall be substituted the words ", 132A or". '.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Schedule 10

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 40, in page 192, column 3, at end insert—
'In Schedule 10, paragraphs 14
to 16.'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Order for Third Reading read.

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debates on the Bill. It is basically a non-contentious measure. Much of it consolidates 40 previous enactments. The fact that it has been non-contentious is shown by the absence of any Divisions. We are witnessing the disappearance of venerable Scottish enactments from the previous century. This Bill might not be quite so durable, but I have no doubt that it will be a sound and solid measure. I am sure that the House hopes that it will last a considerable time.

Mr. Maxton: It must be said that, although this is a non-contentious Bill in a strict party political sense, in that there is no division between the Government and the Opposition, it is important to many of our constituents, as has been shown by the number of issues that have been raised.
We were misled by the Government about the way in which the Bill was to be considered. It was agreed that the Bill should be taken on the Floor of the House, and that there would be one day for the Committee stage, on the basis that the Bill was a non-contentious consolidation measure containing very little new material. We then found that pages and pages of Government amendments had been tabled. I do not believe that the Bill has been debated as fully as it should have been. I think that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) agrees with me, and probably the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker).
None the less, I hope that the Minister is right and that the legislation will be durable. I hope that it will last at least for the next four years and that thereafter the subject of roads in Scotland will be debated not here but—when the next Labour Government have been elected—where it should be debated, in an assembly in Edinburgh.

Mr. David Marshall: During the Committee stage last week, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said that he would write to me about the questions that I had asked. He has now done so. Whilst his answers are not what I might have hoped, they are very helpful and I thank him for them.

Mr. Craigen: I feel that the Bill may haunt us for some time. There have been so many drafting errors—including some discovered this evening—that I feel sure that amending orders will be necessary.
Codification is normally regarded as a means of making life easier for those who have to deal with a multitude of statutes. My initial welcome, on Second Reading, of this consolidation measure on those grounds must be qualified in the light of experience. The Minister has given us some assurances that, now that we are moving into a rate-capping period, any extra costs connected with the innovations will be borne in mind. The costs of maintaining existing public roads and adopting and updating private roads will also fall upon the roads authorities.
Finally, there are some good and some bad provisions among the miscellaneous measures. There are some


circulars that encapsulate the views of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), at least in respect of hedgehog ramps. Among other measures, we welcome the road bonds, which will be useful.
I thank the Officers of the House and others who have been involved in this lengthy process.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Animal Health and Welfare Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mrs. Fenner.]

Mr. Mark Hughes: On behalf of my colleagues, I welcome the Bill. It is not a major contribution to legislation in this area, but it is wholly useful and desirable. The first four clauses, amending the Animal Health Act 1981, bring into context certain minor problems that have arisen, particular in connection with the supply of feedingstuffs from grain stores in—for example—Liverpool, the current outbreak of fowl pest and the ability of officials to enter premises. We wholly welcome those measures. In Committee, significant Government amendments on the slaughter of poultry were tabled. I said that we might wish to consider them when we had received advice. I am happy to inform the House that, having received advice, we find these amendments generally acceptable.
However, there are some minor difficulties on which we would welcome clarification. There should be a clear duty on local authorities to execute and enforce the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967 and any regulations made under it. There should be no peradventure about that. The wording of the new clause and the amendments thereto make that absolutely clear.
The British Veterinary Association asks that, in licensed poultry slaughterhouses, where the law already requires the presence of an official veterinary surgeon to supervise hygiene standards, the responsibility of that official veterinary surgeon should be extended to include welfare.
At this point perhaps I can transgress the strict terms of the Bill. According to press reports, all the evidence from the Harrison committee regarding the slaughter of red meat only reinforces the requirement that qualified veterinary surgeons should oversee the welfare of animals in slaughterhouses. When the regulations are laid, I trust that the Minister will make certain that the powers will be effectively used to make certain that official veterinary surgeons shall have power to include the welfare of poultry. Such a power should extend not only to red meat slaughterhouses but to every aspect of slaughterhouse activity.
I suspect that the small on-farm slaughtering provision caused most difficulty, not only in the House but in Committee. I refer particularly to the relationship between the authorised and official veterinary service and the seasonal and occasional slaughtering of poultry on farm. Clearly, this is a technical as well as a welfare problem. No one wishes to see inhumane slaughtering simply because it is on farm. Nothing should be done on farm which is more disadvantageous to the welfare of poultry than what is done in licensed slaughterhouses.
However, there is a technical difficulty for the operators of small poultry, turkey or hen farms. I hope that the Minister will require periodic veterinary inspection of all such premises, and periodic and adequate veterinary control over the on-farm slaughtering of poultry.
We entirely welcome the tightening up of the current unacceptable practice of selling in markets live chickens


which are subsequently sold slaughtered as a gift from the seller. That was the wrong and unacceptable way of circumventing the will of this House.
We welcome the fact that that should now be inhibited.
Clauses 10, 11 and 12 are also important. I have seen many of the problems in the developing countries and the Third world and the power of politicians to control the quality of breeding stock—bulls, rams and so on—and to inhibit the improvement of livestock quality. That no longer applies in this country, and the licensing of bulls and so on must be desirable. The need to bring legislation into line with modern technology on such things as embryo plants must be a step in the right direction.
On clauses 13, 14 and 15, there is a difficulty. I refer to the letter that I received from the Under-Secretary regarding the control envisaged on medicated animal feedingstuffs. Here, I refer specifically to the problem of Northern Ireland. I quote from the Parliamentary Secretary's letter of 25 June:
Your first question concerns the relationship between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland on this clause.
That is, clause 13, which is one of the few clauses that applies to Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady continued:
No consultations have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Republic on the amendment to the Medicines Act. Since the Medicines Act is a United Kingdom statute any import requirements under that statute would apply to imports from the Irish Republic to Northern Ireland in the same way as they apply to imports from the Irish Republic to Great Britain.
We have no details of any analogues legislation in the Irish Republic. Like the United Kingdom they are, however, obliged to comply with and implement European Community Directives 70/524 on additives in feedingstuffs and 81/851 on veterinary medicinal products.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider carefully the implications of that in terms of control of animal feedingstuffs in Ulster impregnated with veterinary drugs. Northern Ireland has access to medicinally impregnated feedingstuffs, and although this Bill is supposed to cover Northern Ireland, I have grave doubts as to its efficacy in this instance. I doubt whether it inhibits the use in Northern Ireland of drug-impregnated feedingstuffs that we, on the mainland of the United Kingdom, find unacceptable.
The second concern is the controls envisaged on the importation of medicated feedingstuffs. The Minister's letter says:
The second question related to the controls envisaged on the importation of medicated feedingstuffs. The current position under Section 40 of the Medicines Act 1968 is that medicated feedingstuffs may only be imported into the United Kingdom if the medicinal product has been incorporated into the feed in accordance with a product licence, an animal test certificate or a prescription issued by a veterinary surgeon for the treatment of a particular animal or herd under the care of that veterinary surgeon.
I regret to say that many in the livestock sector are unhappy about the efficacy of that regulation. I hope that, when the Minister replies, she will assure the House that in the United Kingdom as a whole there is no risk of animal feedingstuffs being used that have been medicated with products that are unacceptable under United Kingdom law. I especially want an assurance that no animal feedingstuffs are available and used in Northern Ireland that are not acceptable under United Kingdom law.
The Eire Government have not implemented the necessary regulations. It would be wholly inappropriate for Eire to have the advantage of growth promoters and all the other elements while farmers in Northern Ireland are

inhibited from using them. If the Eire farmers are permitted to use growth promoters and other feedingstuff additives under the pretence that it is simple medication—which is frequently done—that would be a further disadvantage to our Ulster colleague farmers—given all the pressures on them, with dairy closures and so on—vis-a-vis their southern Irish colleagues.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government would be better occupied in consulting the Government of the Irish Republic about practical matters rather than about the constitutional arrangements for part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hughes: It has always seemed to me that the Government would be far better concerned with consulting on veterinary problems and associated matters than on esoteric matters of constitutionality, but that is a strictly private view. Veterinary problems are common problems that must be consulted about on a common basis.
Has the Minister received any information about veterinary surgeons performing illegal operations in the form of either research or quasi-research in the production of what I can refer to only as monsters—hybrid animals that have no hope of progeny. Were she to receive information of such experiments, will she undertake as a matter of grave urgency, to satisfy public opinion that: the veterinary profession is not concerned with experimental practices?
Having said that, on behalf of the Opposition I welcome the Bill as a modest but wholly welcome improvement in the provisions for animal health and welfare in this country.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I begin with a somewhat heretical expression of regret. The Second Reading of the Bill was relegated to a Friday morning, with all that that implies; the Standing Committee deliberated for 1 hour 27 minutes; and the messages that have reached me tonight suggest that brevity would be appreciated. I shall comply with that wish, and the consequence will be an abbreviated speech.
I wish to speak about three clauses. First, with other hon. Members, I applaud and welcome the Minister taking, in clause 1, additional powers to seize infected materials from premises on which a notifiable disease has been confirmed. On Second Reading, I was one of those who pointed out that where the industry contributed financially to an eradication programme—Aujesky's disease or Newcastle disease—there must be the closest consultation between the Government and the industry at the point of formulating secondary legislation.
I listened carefully to the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary on Second Reading and in Committee. I have read and re-read the Official Report of what was said and I do not believe that the Government have yet taken on board explicitly the need for consultation in this area of the proposals. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will assure us tonight that the Government appreciate the need for thorough-going consultation between the industry and. Government in relation to eradication programmes.
Secondly, let me turn to what was clause 5 in our earlier deliberations and has now become clause 6. I speak with


a degree of trepidation and apology because, in essence, the point I wish to make is the same as that which I made on Second Reading and in Committee, and to which the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) referred a few minutes ago. I raise the matter again because I remain unhappy about it. What happens if, when we move into the licensing era, the small poultry farmer who is basically operating a one-man show falls ill? How does he fare? The same point applies to the larger farmer who goes in for poultry perhaps as a seasonal sideline.
In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary, when moving a series of amendments to the then clause 5, said:
Subsection (2)(b) and (d) will enable us to make exceptions in appropriate cases from any of the provisions in the regulations.
She went on:
we will give careful consideration when we come to make the regulations to any requests we may receive for special treatment".
She stressed that the welfare of animals was most important, and who can quarrel with this? I asked what would happen if a licensed slaughterer fell ill, and my hon. Friend assured me
that the powers are wide enough to enable us to take account of those circumstances and we will need to consider the point when the regulations are made".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 June 1984; c. 8–9.]
I believe that in due course the regulations should reflect the difficulties that may affect the small man and should allow him to retain responsibility but in certain circumstances to second the act of slaughter to someone else. I stress that point again, because we must realistically take on board the small farmer's problems while bearing in mind our wider moral responsibility—if we can call it that—for the welfare of the animals. We should not seek the non-application of these controls. We should allow the delegation of those controls to someone else, despite the indication of disapproval by the hon. Member for City of Durham.
Thirdly, I turn to clause 10. Perhaps I indulged in a little scaremongering on Second Reading when voicing the worries of farmers in my constituency, whose views were, I believe, prompted by the National Farmers Union. My basic question—I still await an answer—was: are people right to think that this clause, and clauses 10 to 12 generally, prepare the ground for the charging of fees for licences and approvals to regulate breeding? If the answer is yes, is there justification for the further belief that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is thinking in terms of £200 or £300 per bull? Those are the figures cited. Such sums would impose a considerable financial burden on the industry. I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to comment on that point.
Finally, let me remind the House that I tried on Second Reading to discover whether my hon. Friend had in mind secondary legislation, either giving vets a monopoly on supervising advanced artificial breeding techniques or allowing technicians—they do this now—as well as qualified vets to perform those functions. When summing up on Second Reading, my hon. Friend made comments that were not re-echoed or built on in Standing Committee. She said:
I understand that embryo transfer … is already conducted by people other than veterinary surgeons. Whether that should continue, possibly subject to some form of veterinary

supervision, is a matter for subordinate legislation, on which there will be full consultation."—[Official Report, 18 May 1984; Vol. 60, c. 654.]
I was tempted then to probe my hon. Friend's thinking on that matter, but I ask her now whether she has had further thoughts on this matter.
I ask my hon. Friend to deal with these points in due course.

Sir Peter Mills: Naturally, I welcome the Bill and support what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has done.
I return to the point made by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) about Northern Ireland. As a former Northern Ireland Minister with responsibility for agriculture I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture is well able to look after itself. It is probably one of the most efficient Departments in the United Kingdom. When I had the privilege of being the responsible Minister, the Department was extremely careful in its actions with regard to control. Indeed, it was sometimes difficult for me to get done some of the things that I wanted done because it was so keen to isolate itself from any of the other problems and diseases. I can assure the hon. Gentleman—although I should not be winding up, as it were, for the Minister—that I have the highest regard for the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland and its ability to deal with such matters. Perhaps that will set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest.
Naturally, I welcome the Bill. The need for this measure, particularly the animal health side of it, is increasing all the time. Because of the size of our flocks and herds the dangers are real. One has to accept the stringent measures in the interests of all in the control of diseases. I am certain that farmers are willing and ready to accept them.
The position has changed out of all recognition from days gone by when there were small flocks of birds and small herds of cattle and sheep. Therefore, it is right that we should have such stringent measures. Disease spreads rapidly and the need to protect other herds and flocks is real. The dangers of disease spreading are great because there is immunity for some time and then it breaks down rapidly. I wholeheartedly support the clauses dealing with animal health matters.
There is no doubt that there is great concern in Britain about the slaughter of poultry and humane conditions and practices. I receive many letters on that subject. The problem is that it is a minefield of difficulties. The Government are doing all they can to assist in that area and to be helpful. I think that they are on the right course. However, mass production means mass killing and that is not pleasant. Anybody who has been to a poultry slaughterhouse, where hundreds of thousands of birds are slaughtered a week, knows that it is an unpleasant business. The public do not realise the exact position. They want cheap birds and poultrymeat and yet many of them are not prepared to accept that mass production means mass killing. It is not at all pleasant. We should take real precautions to see that humane conditions and practices exist. I welcome what is being done in that area.
I hope, too, that there will be another look at the need for birds to travel great distances. As the number of slaughterhouses that are able to deal with the mass killing of birds becomes smaller, so birds have to travel literally


hundreds of miles. In Cornwall, alone, I do not think that there is a single slaughterhouse for birds. They all have to go to Devon. That means some suffering for the birds.
We should consult producers as well as the vets on this subject. The British Veterinary Association is to be congratulated on its work. It has set up research work in that area and a chair to promote the study of animal welfare. That is right and proper in the age in which we live because of the enormous number of slaughterings that occur. I hope that the Government will support that. As the results are produced I hope that we can rapidly change our methods so that we can assist in more humane conditions in the killing of animals and birds.
I hope that through the Bill we can be flexible about such matters. I am sure that in a few years' time there will be real changes in the methods of mass slaughter so that conditions become more humane. The chair of research set up by the British Veterinary Association will help very much.
This is an excellent Bill, which will assist us in resolving some of the difficult and sensitive problems, although the public still want the food and the protein that comes from the slaughterhouses. Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government on their progress in this area.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): The Bill has received a broad welcome in the House—the Opposition have made that point tonight—and in another place, and I am sure that Opposition Members will not wish to delay the passage into law of what we all agree is a useful package of measures. However, I appreciate that anxiety has been expressed about one or two specific areas and about the implications of the new provisions included in Committee in the clauses dealing with the slaughter of poultry. I hope that I can reaassure those hon. Members who have expressed concern.
The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) said that local authorities should have a clear duty to implement the provisions of the Bill. Perhaps I can enlarge on what we intend to do to introduce veterinary supervision of welfare. I realise that there may be enforcement problems in Northern Ireland with regard to feedingstuffs, but we must get the legislation right first.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) was worried about formulating regulations and the amount of consultation. In Committee I assured my hon. Friend that the powers are wide enough to take those circumstances into account, and we must consider the matter when the regulations are made. I did not say that we should make exceptions; the powers are wide enough to draw the points that he made into the regulations. There will be extensive consultation before we produce the regulations, which I hope will reassure him.
In Committee my hon. Friend asked about clause 6 and licences. We shall consult before we prepare the regulations to bring into effect the licensing provisions. My hon. Friend acknowledged that we can make exceptions, but we shall make different provisions for different cases, and we have the power to enable delegation of responsibility. I cannot say now how we shall deal with this matter, because we must consult first.
My hon. Friend asked about charges. It is estimated to cost between £200 and £300 to approve a bull, so it is

impossible to say now what level of charges can be fixed as a means of reducing some costs. In addition, it may be decided that it is inappropriate to charge the full rate, or any rate, for some activities carried out under the existing regulations.
I welcomed the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) about the need for welfare in intensive farming. I hope that he will agree that the main thrust of the middle section of the Bill is about exactly that and responds to the recommendations made by the Farm Animal Welfare Council about the welfare of poultry at slaughter.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I apologise for taking the hon. Lady back to a previous subject, but I had not appreciated that she would deal so briefly with the points raised by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes). Will she confirm that the Government are ascertaining that the Irish Republic is applying the controls required of it in this respect by international agreements? I believe that that question was specifically asked by the hon. Member for City of Durham.

Mrs. Fenner: As I told the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) in a letter, as a member of the European Community the Irish Republic is committed to the two directives in respect of feedingstuffs and veterinary medicines. If the right hon. Gentleman washes me to confirm that to him I shall try to do so in due course in a letter.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am most grateful to the Minister.

Mrs. Fenner: What has been said today clearly shows the Government's difficulty in framing provisions to respond to the recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council for improving the welfare of poultry at slaughter. On the one hand, there is a case for strengthening our measures to assure the proper welfare of poultry. On the other hand, local authorities and the poultry industry are worried that new measures may create unacceptable extra costs for them.
An area of concern brought to my attention by the poultry industry concerns clause 6, which has been drafted to take into account recommendation No. 35 in the councils report on the welfare of poultry at the time of slaughter, which states that staff employed in the stunning or slaughter of poultry should be licensed. Regulations made under this provision will be concerned basically with achieving humane treatment and conditions for the birds concerned.
On licensing, a previous print of the Bill clearly referred to people, and the requirements were directed at slaughter for commercial purposes, but that did not cover situations in which customers bought live birds which were slaughtered after sale. The provision was redrafted to refer to premises rather than people, but I assure the House that our intentions remain as before.
Local authorities will grant the licences, but the licensing provisions cannot be triggered until the regulations are made and I assure the House that the regulations will not be made without the fullest consultation beforehand. The Bill therefore does not seek to specify the details of any future arrangement but enables the Government to devise a scheme. I regret that this may have led to some misinterpretation of our intentions, but


I assure the House that when the licensing regulations are made they will apply to people and not to premises. I felt that I should add that to reassure the industry, which clearly found the position a trifle ambiguous.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I am most grateful to the Minister, but as soon as it applies to people rather than premises, the problem referred to by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) becomes more difficult for the very small producer, because if only one person is licensed and that person is sick, there will be no licensed slaughterer on the premises? Will the regulations be drafted sufficiently widely to get around that.

Mrs. Fenner: Yes, indeed; as I tried to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstone, after consultation the regulations can be drafted in such a way as to make certain exceptions and to deal with particular circumstances. I hope that the hon. Member for City of Durham, too, will be reassured by my answer on that.
I assure the House that I know that local authorities and the poultry industry may be worried that new measures will create unacceptable extra costs for them. As I have said several times in Committee, the welfare of the birds is our prime concern. I assure the House that the Government are well aware of those concerns.
I hope that it will be possible to reconcile the two positions. We shall seek to take positive steps to improve welfare in ways that will not impose unreasonable costs on the industry or on enforcement authorities. The details of our proposals will be for subordinate legislation. We shall take carefully into account all the interests concerned before introducing such measures.
I hope that that shows the seriousness with which I take the points that hon. Members have raised, throughout the Bill's passage. The hon. Member for City of Durham and other hon. Members have called this evening for an enhanced role for veterinary surgeons in the enforcement of the welfare legislation. We intend to use the power provided by the Bill to require local authorities to give formal responsibility for the supervision of welfare in licensed slaughterhouses to the official veterinary surgeon.
We shall look carefully at the possibilities of an increased role for veterinary surgeons in unlicensed premises. We have the powers under clause 9 to require local authorities to arrange for periodic inspections of those places by vets. I assure the House that we shall examine that possibility carefully and that we shall consult the organisations representing the veterinary profession before taking any decisions.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke felt that his valuable contribution this evening was circumscribed by the need to be brief. This is a small measure, but it covers several very important areas. I hope that hon. Members feel that they have had an opportunity to debate it thoroughly on Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Education (Northern Ireland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
That the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 7 June, be approved.
The draft order before the House is long and complex, but I shall attempt to deal with it briefly. It amends the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, and it incorporates in that order the procedures, contained in the Education (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, whereby certain grant-aided schools may become controlled integrated schools.
The main provisions of the order derive from the Astin report on the management of schools in Northern Ireland, the Benn report on voluntary schools in Northern Ireland and indirectly the Warnock report on the education of handicapped children and young people in Great Britain.
The order has been the subject of wide-ranging consultation with educational interests in Northern Ireland. I also met deputations from two of the Northern Ireland political parties. And I know from the report of the Northern Ireland Assembly which was laid before this House on 23 November 1983 that the draft order was carefully examined by the Assembly education committee. I would like to record my appreciation of the interest shown by the Assembly and by some 150 other bodies and individuals who submitted comments on the order.
Arising from the recommendations of the Assembly and the other comments, 10 changes of substance have been made to the order. Copies of the Government's response to the Assembly report have been placed in the Library. Hon. Members will be interested to know that the Government's response was generally welcomed by the Assembly. I have also written separately to hon. Members advising them of the main changes that have been made to the proposal for the draft order. I hope that that will have assisted them in their study of this particular piece of legislation.
I have painted the backdrop in some detail to illustrate not only the scope of the consultation but the volume of critical scrutiny to which the order has been subjected.
Of course, inevitably, some people, perhaps including some hon. Members, may be disappointed that we could not adopt their particular suggestions, or that we could meet only some of them. However, I hope that, upon reflection, they will be able to accept that in an area as wide as education, where there are many-sided interests, there has to be some give and take. The Government have had to weigh all views and interests, however diverse, and we have done our best to ensure that the decisions we have taken are in the best interests of the education service for Northern Ireland. That sets the scene. I now refer to the draft order itself.
Perhaps the most significant provisions are those concerning changes in the management structures of schools. Historically in Northern Ireland, considerable attention has been paid to school management, but the position has remained static for a substantial number of years. The management structures for local authority schools, now called controlled schools, have been laid down in law since 1923 and the present provisions have remained unaltered since 1947. The present management arrangements for all but a handful of voluntary schools


have been in operation since 1968. It was appropriate and timely that there should be fresh consideration of school management structures.
A working party chaired by Professor Astin, former pro vice-chancellor of Queen's university, Belfast, reported in 1979, and the Government announced in March 1981 that they accepted most of the recommendations of his report. The most significant were that parents and assistant teachers should be represented, as of right, on the boards of governors of all grant-aided schools. Those recommendations were given a general welcome although views differed as to the proportions in which the various categories of membership should be represented on the boards of different schools.
Following consultation with the major interests involved in school management, the Government announced their proposals for the future composition of boards of governors in September 1981. A more recent round of consultations on the draft order has led to numerical changes in the composition of some of the smaller boards of governors. The transferor representation on the smallest board of governors of controlled primary and intermediate schools has been increased from three to four, thereby increasing the voting membership of those boards to nine. In the case of the smallest board of governors of a maintained school, and of a voluntary grammar school, which has entered into an agreement with the Department or an education and library board, the number of members representative of the trustees or foundation governors has been increased from five to six, thereby increasing their voting membership to 10.
There has been no change in the required numbers of parent and teacher governors. The Government decided against the recommendations made by the Northern Ireland Assembly, the three main Protestant Churches and others, that the additional transferor should be a parent because that would upset the balance of statutory parental representation between controlled and voluntary schools. However, there is nothing to prevent transferors from nominating one or more parents as their representatives if they so wish—the increase in transferor representation should facilitate such flexibility.
Parents and teachers will be given a responsible role on the boards of governors. They will be elected by fellow parents and fellow teachers, rather than nominated by some other body, as was suggested by some of the interests with which consultations took place. The Government believe that it is right that they should be able to determine by democratic means who will represent them. That fundamental principle is already enshrined in legislation in England and Wales.
I appreciate that the holding of elections, particularly in large schools, could pose logistical problems. For that reason, the order does not set down rigid procedures that must be adhered to when such elections are being held. The education and library board, in the case of a controlled school, and the board of governors, in the case of a voluntary school, will determine the best and most appropriate arrangements for elections, although such arrangements will be subject to my Department's approval. The only statutory requirement is that any vote taken in an election is to be by secret ballot. That is a fundamental prerequisite for any democratic election, and I believe that it is right to enshrine it in legislation.
The order also provides for the implementation of a number of other Astin recommendations. I draw attention

in particular to article 25, which requires school authorities to prepare schemes setting out the procedures to be followed in regard to the suspension and expulsion of pupils. I share the views expressed in the Astin report that, in this controversial area, it is essential that there should be clear and readily understood procedures laid down. Many of the difficulties in regard to suspensions and expulsions arise because such procedures do not exist or, where they do exist, they are sometimes not clearly defined, understood, or, in some cases, followed. Article 25 will empower my Department to prescribe by regulation certain fundamental matters that must be common to all schemes.
Article 34 of the published proposal—now article 33 of the draft order—contained a provision which would have given an education and library board the power to appeal to the Department, if it considered the board of governors of a controlled school was acting unreasonably in not giving consent to the redeployment of a teacher. The provision was based on an Astin recommendation, but it was strenuously opposed by controlled school interests on the grounds that it was unacceptable that there should be a statutory provision, whereby controlled schools could be required to accept teachers from voluntary schools, while voluntary schools retained absolute control over their own teaching appointments. In the light of these views I concluded that the provision should be removed from the order.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The Minister did not deal with article 33. It provides for a teacher to go to a school without advertisement for the post if,
the teacher is a teacher in the school to which the appointment is to be made and the Board of Governors of the school has given to the board its prior consent to the appointment".
That appears to be parochial, because instead of cross-fertilisation, and teachers with outside experience coming to a school, promotion will occur within the school without an advertisement.
That would be difficult to do on the mainland because teachers, governing bodies and education authorities prefer to have experienced teachers from many places, rather than promotion within the school. Will the Minister comment on that?

Mr. Scott: I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is too late to amend the order. We are anxious to have the best teachers for our schools, and to have a sensible scheme for the redeployment of teachers at a time of falling rolls. The change that I announced may in a minimal way make it less easy to redeploy teachers, but the feelings in Northern Ireland were so strong that I was right to make this alteration before the order was laid.
The Benn report on voluntary schools recommended that voluntary grammar schools which become nonselective secondary schools should have the choice of either adopting the maintained school system of financing their revenue expenditure or continuing to receive their recurrent grant from my Department. Articles 7 to 11 enable such a school to exercise that choice and, if it wishes after experience of one system, to change its initial option.
If the school decides to become a maintained school, that is, a voluntary school which includes education and library board representatives on its board of governors, the financial arrangements, with one exception, would be the


same as for existing maintained schools. Its recurrent expenditure and expenditure on equipment would be the responsibility of the education and library board. Grant would be payable at the rate of 85 per cent. towards capital expenditure on premises but, unlike existing maintained schools, the school authorities would be able to charge a fee, within a prescribed maximum, for the purpose of meeting capital expenditure not met by grant.
If the school opted to continue to receive recurrent grant from my Department it would be a direct grant voluntary intermediate school. Articles 12 to 14 govern the financial and other arrangements, which would apply to such a school. In particular, grant would be payable at a rate of 85 per cent. towards capital expenditure and the school authorities would be able to charge a fee, again within a prescribed maximum, for the purpose of meeting capital expenditure not net by grant. I would also draw attention to article 13(3), which applies article 95(2) of the 1972 order to direct grant voluntary intermediate schools. Under article 95(2) an education and library board may apply to my Department for a vesting order if it wishes to acquire, compulsorily, Iand which it considers necessary for the purposes of a maintained school or a voluntary grammar school which has entered into an agreement conferring on the head of a department or a board or both the right to appoint members to the board of governors. Under articles 7 to 11 a school cannot become a direct grant voluntary intermediate school unless such an agreement exists between the school and the Department. It is therefore reasonable that article 95(2) should apply to a direct grant voluntary intermediate school as it applies to an "agreement" grammar school and to a maintained school. I should add that although compulsory acquisition powers have been available since 1978 in respect of most voluntary schools, no applications for vesting orders have been received, nor is it expected that it will be necessary to exercise the powers frequently in the future. Of course these powers are subject to the usual safeguards for the owner of the land both at the initial stage of vesting and in the event of disposal.
As hon. Members already know, the Northern Ireland assembly recommended that articles 7 to 14 should be removed from the order. The Government accept that these provisions are unlikely to be used to any great extent. Nevertheless with declining enrolments, some voluntary grammar schools may see their future role, or indeed their continued existence, in secondary education as nonselective schools. As articles 7–14 would enable such schools, despite ceasing to be grammar schools, to retain their direct grant relationship with my Department, they could promote and encourage positive moves towards rationalisation of secondary school provision. For this reason the Government decided against the Assembly recommendation that the provisions should be removed.
Further changes arising from the Government's acceptance of certain recommendations of the Benn report relate to the method of financing recurrent expenditure for voluntary grammar schools. The present system of recurrent grant distribution involving a large number of specific grants which has been in operation for over 30 years is cumbersome, complex and difficult to administer. Article 30 provides for its replacement by a simplified and streamlined block grant system. The grant which now meets the tuition fees for non-fee-paying pupils in

voluntary grammar schools will be subsumed in the block grant. In future the only fees chargeable by grammar schools will be those to meet expenditure not met out of public funds, for example, tuition fees for pupils who do not obtain non-fee-paying places, capital fees, preparatory and boarding department fees. The maximum capital fee chargeable by a group A voluntary grammar school, that is one which is required to reserve places for non-fee-paying pupils, will continue to be prescribed by my Department but in other respects the determination of these fees will be left to the school authority rather than, as at present being subject to my Department's approval.
I would now like to deal with the revision of the law on special education. These provisions are very much in line with legislation in Great Britain which was based broadly on recommendations of the Warnock committee on the education of handicapped children and young people.
Although Northern Ireland was not included in the Warnock committee's terms of reference there is much in the report which is relevant to special education in Northern Ireland. It is therefore proper that the Northern Ireland law should also be updated. This order takes account of the revisions made in the law in Great Britain so far as they are relevant to Northern Ireland. I would like to highlight three main features.
First and foremost, the order replaces the concept of special educational treatment for children categorised according to one of 10 particular types of handicap, with a new wider concept of special educational provision based on the special educational needs of individual children. The Warnock report presented strong arguments for this change of emphasis and I am sure hon. Members would not disagree with the view that we need to look at the child rather than the handicap, and that a single handicap is less common than a multiplicity of problems. The real need is that, for every child with serious learning difficulties, the teacher should have a clear and detailed account of the nature of those difficulties together with recommendations about what is needed to meet the child's needs.
The term "special educational needs" is defined in such a way as to recognise that, as the Warnock report said, up to 20 per cent. of children may have special needs which require special help at some time in their school careers. As at present, of course, in many cases such help will be provided in the ordinary school. It is expected that only a small percentage of those children will have such special educational needs as to require assessment by a team of professionals so that their special educational provision can be determined by an education and library board. The order provides a detailed framework of the procedures for assessments and statements of special educational needs of such children.
The second main feature is the emphasis on the importance of involving parents at all stages in the making of decisions about the special educational provision for their children. This is not new in practice, of course, but the legislation makes specific provision for parents to have the opportunity of making their views known and of talking to the professionals involved in the assessment of their children's needs.
Thirdly, the order includes the statement of principle that, wherever possible, children with special educational needs should be educated in ordinary schools. This will, of course, be subject to certain safeguards, including that


the school should be able to provide for the child's special needs and that his presence there should not prejudice the provision of efficient education for other pupils or the efficient use of resources. Clearly not all children with learning difficulties can be educated in ordinary schools, but the Government hope that this formal statement of principle in legislation will provide a further stimulus to the integration of such children in ordinary schools wherever it is possible.
These changes make up the bulk of the order. There are also a large number of less detailed, but none the less important, amendments. Those of most interest are perhaps contained in articles 20, 22, 27, 28 and 34.
I turn first to article 20. Unlike England and Wales, in Northern Ireland pupils can transfer at the age of 15 from secondary to further education. That policy of transferring at age 15 was reviewed in 1982 and it was concluded that there would be both educational and administrative advantages in retaining all 15-year-olds in schools.
There are several advantages. Pupils who transfer at present at 15-plus are often those who can least afford to lose the continuity of care and teaching and the kind of individual attention which the school can be expected to provide. A small number of final year pupils, because of the date of their birthday, are able to transfer to further education after only three years of secondary education. The removal of a number of these pupils can adversely affect school organisation in certain circumstances. Since, today full-time training or education is to be offered to all 16-year-olds under the youth training programme, there is less justification for beginning vocational courses at 15-plus. The absence of 15-year-olds would free college resources in further education for the development of appropriate link courses and courses under the youth training programme.
The new policy, ending the transfer of pupils to further education at 15, has been implemented voluntarily. Article 20 gives it a statutory base by changing the law to ensure that, in future, further education may be provided only for persons over compulsory school age.
Article 22 clarifies and amends the present legislation concerning school development proposals. It makes it clear that my Department may give directions that development proposals should be submitted in respect of voluntary schools as well as controlled schools. It also extends the circumstances in which development proposals are needed to include cases where proposed changes in one school would have a significant effect on another.
Article 27 re-enacts existing legislative provision in that it requires milk, meals or other refreshment to be provided for pupils at grant-aided schools and enables a similar service to be made available to pupils at institutions of further education. The provision of the service will be governed by arrangements approved by my Department, instead of by regulations. This is in line with Great Britain, where the school meals service has not been subject to regulations since the Education Act 1980 came into operation. However, while local education authorities in Great Britain have discretion about the provision that they may make, for example, in relation to the standard of school meals, the same level of discretion will not be extended to Education and Library Boards. The arrangements approved by my Department will lay down requirements relating to the standard of school meals to be provided in Northern Ireland.
The article also introduces a new requirement for facilities to be provided for pupils to eat food which they have brought to school. Similar provision was made for the rest of the United Kingdom in the Education Act 1980.
Article 28 re-enacts, with amendments, existing provisions relating to the training of teachers and makes new provision for account to be taken of the current value of redundant facilities in the payment or repayment of capital grant in respect of a voluntary college of education. The new recovery provision is intended to ensure that where grant-aided sites or premises cease to be required for the purposes of a college of education, an equitable share of their value will accrue to public funds. Under existing regulations, my Department may recover an amount not exceeding the actual grant paid. This does not take account of the effect of inflation on the value of property. It is therefore proposed that in any future cases—grants paid after 1 August 1984—public funds should receive an equitable proportion of the enhanced value of any grant-aided facilities which are no longer required for the purposes of a college of education. In other words, both the Department and the voluntary authorities would receive their proper share of the inflated value of the redundant college facilities.
Similarly, where grant is sought on the replacement of college premises, the grant may be reduced by an equitable share of the value of the redundant premises. It is intended that this latter provision should apply to any new grants being paid, irrespective of when or whether grant was paid on the old premises.
While on the subject of colleges of education, I should draw hon. Members' attention to paragraph 30 of schedule 8, which requires colleges of education to be open at all reasonable times to inspection by my Department. This requirement is a grant condition in existing regulations but under this order regulations will apply only to capital grants, so the general rule in schedule 8 becomes necessary. Article 91 of the 1972 order, which requires a variety of educational establishments to be open at all reasonable times to inspection by inspectors and other officers of the Department, is therefore being extended to include colleges of education.
Article 34 and schedule 7 amend the law relating to the Northern Ireland Schools Examinations Council. The Northern Ireland General Certificate of Education examinations board and the Northern Ireland Certificate of Secondary Education examinations board will be abolished, their functions will be transferred to the council and the constitution of the council will be changed to take account of the transfer. These changes originated in the consideration which led to the decision, announced last week, to introduce a common system of examinations at 16-plus. The examinations council proposed, and the Government accepted that, irrespective of any change in the examinations system, there would be advantages in moving from the existing administrative structure to a single examining body, as in Scotland and Wales. This will offer advantages in the operation of the existing system and will give greater flexibility in responding to the proposed changes.
The remaining provisions are largely technical or administrative. If hon. Members wish to raise any points I shall do my best to respond later. Most of the order will come into operation on 1 August 1984. Article 34, which deals with the examinations council, will come into operation on 1 December 1984.
I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Peter Archer: The Minister said that this was a long and complex order. This is not the hour to embark on a long and complex debate, and I do not propose to do so, but it is a measure of the disadvantages of direct rule that important matters are discussed by way of unamendable orders late at night and in a thin House. While we have a direct rule, it is wrong for the Government so to overload the Order Paper for one day.
I endorse the value of the consideration given to the order by the Assembly committee to which the Minister referred, and the evidence given to it by those who took so much trouble to submit their evidence.
The most disappointing feature of this order is article 16, which gives effect to the new article 25E. It is the law relating to children who are perhaps somewhat dismissively referred to as
children unsuitable for education at school".
It appears that provision for them is to be unchanged. The Minister said that the purpose of the order was to bring the subject into line—I know that I am paraphrasing him somewhat loosely—with post-Warnock thinking, but such children will continue to be seen entirely as the concern of the health boards, and not of the education authorities. That philosophy has been left behind by contemporary thinking and experience.
There have for many years been people who argued that all children are educable. If there remained any doubt about that, I should have thought that the Warnock report settled the argument. Those of us who have seen in our constituencies what can be done to realise and develop the potential of the severely mentally handicapped know that, in any meaningful sense of the word "educable", they are educable. There is now virtually a sub-profession in teaching of teachers who have developed high expertise. On this side of the water, the House recognised all this in 1970. It recognised that that activity was essentially an educational activity and that responsibility for it should fall to the Department of Education. Indeed, the House went further and recognised the principle that, where possible, children with special needs should be integrated into the regular schools system but that where that was not possible they should at least be within the education system and should have access to the wide range of advice and professional opinion to be found there.
In fact, in 1971 the right to full-time education, not just to care and health provision, was extended specifically to the severely mentally handicapped in England and Wales.
All that is not to deny that those in Northern Ireland who care for severely mentally handicapped children are doing so magnificently. What is at issue is our assertion that children in that category in Northern Ireland should have the same opportunities as children elsewhere.
As I understand the consultative document, the Government's argument is that the transfer of responsibilities to the Department of Education could interrupt the smooth transition from special care schools to adult training centres. In other parts of the United Kingdom any doubts on that issue have been resolved by reversing the argument. The ATCs, now social education centres, have been integrated into the education service. I have written to the Minister expressing my anxieties on this, and I am

fortified by the knowledge that they are shared by the Ulster Teachers Union, the Presbyterian Church, the Western Education and Library Board and, I believe, the great majority of teachers in Northern Ireland. I have heard that last week the Belfast Action Group voted overwhelmingly in support of that suggestion.
The Children's Legal Centre is canvassing whether, if the proposal proceeds, it ought not to be challenged before the European Commission on Human Rights. I have not considered that matter at all carefully, and I do not essay any view on that subject. But I do not believe that the order seeks to maintain arrangements which were appropriate to an earlier age.
As I understand it, the Government say that all these matters must be considered within the framework of limited resources. The transfer would, of course, entail additional resources to the Department of Education. I suspect that that is the real issue. It goes to the root of all the provisions in this order relating to children with special educational problems.
In the explanatory paper originally published, the Government volunteered the assurance that the order will not lead to any increase in public expenditure or to any increase in staff in the public sector. I do not know whose minds they were seeking to set at rest, but I suspect that that reassurance was directed at their colleagues in the Government, particularly in the Treasury. It certainly gave no joy to educationists, who find it profoundly depressing.
At first sight the order appears to introduce imaginative provision for children with special needs, but that must entail resources. Imposing duties on boards and then announcing that they will not be provided with additional resources can only mean that they will have to find those resources from elsewhere in their budgets, and the more seriously thay take their new responsibilities, the more seriously they will have to cut their other services.
Again and again, when the education committee of the Assembly was taking evidence about this, it was told, in effect, by one witness after another that to introduce the provision without providing the resources was like providing a motor vehicle and then withholding the petrol.
The Warnock committee pointed out that its proposals entailed additional resources. It said:
The quality of special education, however, cannot be guaranteed merely by legislation and structural change. The framework provides the setting within which people work together in the interests of children, and the quality of education depends essentially upon their skill and insight, backed by adequate resources—not solely educational resources—efficiently deployed".
A moment's thought confirms that if teachers are to detect the child with special needs they require training, possibly in-service training. They need to be relieved of some of their existing burdens that are additional to teaching. The school receiving a handicapped child may need to make special physical adaptations relating to access, and provide special equipment.
Someone must have the time to go through the exercises that the Minister mentioned in discussing this matter with parents, because for parents it can be a traumatic experience to learn that their child has a problem. Whoever deals with them will require a great deal of time and patience. That is bound to entail additional provision of staff. I fear that this might be another example where, if teachers, by their dedication and submission to longer


working hours, manage to make bricks without straw, the Government will be content to announce that the straw has been shown not to be needed.
This inconsistency shows through also in the provision for expulsion and suspension. Article 25 requires boards to establish procedures to be followed for suspension and expulsion. Full marks for that—it has received general approval. But, if a child has been expelled, what is to become of him? Is he to become a problem in another school, or is he to be left to mark time aimlessly and perhaps finally to drift into the clutches of those who thrive on frustrated and aimless young people? Even at this time of cuts, the north eastern board has recently opened a guidance centre in Coleraine, referred to in evidence to the Assembly by Mr. McKee of the National Association of Schoolmasters. I understand, although I have not yet had the opportunity to visit it, that the Jaffe centre in Belfast is providing similar promising experiments. However, it is asking a great deal of boards to provide such centres without the additional resources.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) referred to the redeployment of teachers. Article 33 recognises the tragic problem of redundancy among teachers, as indeed the Minister said. It is a problem which exists all too evidently on this side of the water, but here it relates to newly qualified teachers who are waiting for an opportunity to use their training constructively. Teachers who are already established have, for the most part, been redployed. In Northern Ireland, the combination of demographic trends and what has come, not always accurately, to be called "rationalisation" has led to more than 1,000 redundancies. The difference is that in England and Wales there is a system of central appointments.
The original proposal, for a right of appeal to the Department if the management committee of a controlled school vetoed a transfer, was not regarded by teachers as a complete answer to their problems—they did not think of the whole arrangement as a particularly happy one—but they felt that it went some way to meet their problems. That appeal has disappeared from the order. We know why. It is a further example of how sensible arrangements can become distorted, for reasons not directly related to how best to administer education. I hope that the Minister will give us some hope that this problem, if not that specific solution, will be looked at again.
Direct rule is a frustrating arrangement at best, but as it entails that arrangements in Northern Ireland usually follow what has been done in Great Britain at an interval of some years, it does at least provide an opportunity to benefit from experience on this side of the water, to adopt what has been shown to work well, and to make adjustments where they appear to be necessary. Here the Government do not seem to have turned their mind to what has happened in England, Scotland and Wales. A great opportunity has been missed, and the concern has been less to benefit children than to benefit the Treasury.
I have some sympathy with the Minister. I suspect that he has scarcely more sympathy for that approach than I have. But that is typical of the Government in which he serves, and for better treatment in their social services the people of Northern Ireland must await a Government with a different philosophy.

Mr. Harold McCusker: The House will be pleased to know that I do not intend to extend the debate unnecessarily. I find myself in the rather strange, albeit welcome, position—one that I should relish, perhaps even cherish—of welcoming what the Minister has said. I am sure that that position will not last for too long, so I may as well enjoy it while it does.
I agree with the criticism expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) about our inability to amend the order, but our experience shows that the proposals for a draft order system that enables representations to be made to Ministers and others—I hope that they take account of them—has paid off. I well recall the meeting that my colleagues and I had on 10 February when we had what I thought was a positive exchange of ideas. I made a reasonable, albeit positive contribution, which the Minister described as a harangue. If harangues are usually as successful as that was, perhaps I should use them more often.
On that occasion I referred to the three matters that the Minister has said he is prepared to change in the order. They go to the heart of education in Northern Ireland and across the political divide, The right hon. and learned Member may regret that division, as I certainly do. For many years, especially when I was in the teaching profession, I harboured aspirations towards the eventual integration of education in Northern Ireland. I reached the conclusion that that was an impossibility. It will not happen because the Roman Catholic hierarchy has a system of education that it controls, which is financed from public funds and which is probably as good a system as it is ever likely to get, and at no time is it likely to relinquish its hold.
The Minister discovered that early in his career in education in Northern Ireland. He was 'told bluntly in a headline in the Belfast Telegraph, "Hands off our schools." The hierarchy was telling the Minister what it would have told a Northern Ireland Government in the same circumstances—except that that would not have been necessary because successive Unionist Governments have backed away from any possible confrontation on the issue. In many respects, in trying to meet the Roman Catholic community's desire for its own education system, and to avoid the possibility of allegations of discrimination, successive Unionist Governments probably entrenched their position to the extent that there is no way in which the Roman Catholic hierachy will ever give up its hold.
The three issues included the representation of the transferors in the management committees of controlled schools. I am sure that the Minister will accept the historic contribution that the main Protestant churches have made to the establishment of education in Northern Ireland, and their continued contribution. He knows how jealously they want to preserve what little influence they have left in that sector of education. We do not have what was once described from the Government Front Bench as a Roman Catholic system of education and a non-Roman Catholic system—which I found highly offensive. We have a Roman Catholic system and a non-denominational system that is in essence, Protestant education concerned with the education of Protestant children. The tranferors were concerned that what influence they had left should be maintained.
I am pleased that the Minister has reacted positively to our representations and those from the churches, the Assembly and others who said that the transferors were entitled to more than what the draft order gave them. I am also pleased that the Minister has accepted that the management committees of the controlled schools have some contribution to make towards the selection of staff for those schools. He has now ensured that it will be a requirement that representatives from those management committees are able to attend meetings of teacher appointments committees and make a contribution. They will thus be able to ensure that not only those making the appointments know what the school requires but will, I hope, be able to make an assessment of the candidates to see that the best decision is made for all concerned.
The third issue to which the Minister was sensitive enough to respond—it goes to the heart of this discussion, and I accept the criticism of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West—was that of the redeployment of teachers from controlled schools. The Minister knows that there would have been no justification for saying to the controlled sector of education, which has suffered greatly from a reduction in intakes into schools, "We shall, if necessary, deploy teachers from the voluntary sector of education into the controlled sector, and if we feel that management committees are acting unreasonably we will appeal to the Department of Education to enforce what we want," if, at the same time, he intended to say, "But there is no way in which redundant teachers from the controlled sector will ever be redeployed into the voluntary sector." Irrespective of what any of us might feel about that issue, it is only sensible to accept that there cannot be one-way traffic in that situation. As those who have to live with the position in Northern Ireland appreciate, that was the only decision that could be made.
Like the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West, I am concerned about disruptive pupils and the fact that children can be expelled from voluntary schools and, in essence, be dumped on the controlled sector of educaton. I have experienced this from the other end. When I was teaching, frequently Catholic parents would come to the school at which I worked asking us to take their children into our school. We welcomed that, and they were brought in. Normally it was not a dispute between the clergy and the child that had caused that to happen. It was a dispute between the clergy and the parents. As a consequence, parents took their children from the local voluntary school and placed them in the local controlled school.
What was the reaction of the clergy? They used every coercive method available to them, including the possible refusal to grant the children confirmation, to force those Roman Catholic parents to take their children out of our school and into the parochial school. Now they have it both ways. They can use that coercive pressure to ensure that Roman Catholic children whom they want to attend their schools attend them. But when they have a troublemaker, out he goes, and the responsibility lies with the controlled sector.

Mr. Flannery: We in this country have managed for a long time to live with the situation that the hon. Gentleman is describing, and the system works reasonably

well. Concessions must, of course, be made, but there is no deep trouble. I am not claiming that the situation here is parallel with that in Northern Ireland, but I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman is making such an issue of it when it works well here.

Mr. McCusker: It works here because there is not the same degree of separation between the two systems. The divide in Northern Ireland in education is so clear that both sides are watching to see who is getting the greater advantage. I am not saying that the separation of systems is ideal—I wish that it did not exist, but that is reality.
There are one or two Protestant voluntary schools in Northern Ireland. A manager of one of those schools said to me, "This is the business to be in. I should know, because I am at it every day." He played the local Catholic voluntary primary school up the road to his advantage. If the Catholic school got a new piano, he got a new piano; if it got a new boiler, he got a new boiler. If there was any dispute, he could say, "What is good enough for St. Pat's is good enough for us." Unfortunately, that is the nature of education in the Province.
Managers of schools will use every possible coercive pressure when it suits them to force parents to send their children to the denominational school away from the controlled sector of education.

Mr. Flannery: That happens in Britain.

Mr. McCusker: Unfortunately, that does not happen in both instances.
When it comes to a disruptive pupil, however, the local parish priest says, "Out you go. You can go along and be educated with those heathens if you want. You will not cause trouble for us here." That poor boy or girl must be absorbed into an environment that may be hostile to him or her. He or she may create disruption in the next school. That is why I support the statements of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West. Whatever the sector, if there are chronic problems with disruptive pupils, something must be done about their treatment.
The Under-Secretary of State referred to his responsibility in Northern Ireland in a difficult time. Decisions were deferred for years before the hon. Gentleman arrived on the scene. Those decisions involved falling enrolments and the consequences on teacher training and school closures. The hon. Gentleman has shown himself to both sides of the community to be sensitive to their wishes and demands. He has shown that sensitivity to the controlled sector of education by his behaviour on these issues tonight. On behalf of the people who asked my party to raise these issues, I express our gratitude to him.

Rev. William McCrea: I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) that this is a long and complex order to be discussing at this hour. It is now 12.36 am. This order was discussed extensively in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Assembly's education committee investigated the matter in depth. I must agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that debating this order at this time in the morning illustrates one of the problems caused by direct rule in Northern Ireland. I do not see hon. Members full of beans at this time.
This extensive and important piece of legislation could not and will not be properly discussed in the House. Many


of the points that have been raised, and which the Government later accepted, were taken into consideration because of the legislation's exposure to the scrutiny of the Northern Ireland Assembly. This legislation well illustrates the value of that Assembly and the improvement in legislation affecting the Province. Hon. Members who know me understand that I and my collegues believe that Ulster can best be served by a full-blooded devolved Government and Parliament with executive and legislative powers. It must be pointed out that several months of painstaking inquiry was involved in the Assembly's examination of the legislation, and that must be in the best interests of the Northern Ireland people.
Many aspects of the legislation concern my party. I am pleased to say that many of the Assembly's representations to the Government have been accepted. Having said that, and it is proper that I do, I take issue with some aspects of the order. Like the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) I must point out that it is appreciated that many recommendations made by the Assembly, political parties and others in Northern Ireland for legislative change have been accepted by the Minister. While I disagree with some points I deeply appreciate the fact that the Minister accepted many recommendations either wholly or in part.
The three aspects with which I wish to deal tonight will not come as any surprise to the Minister. First, I am unhappy that the Government are not prepared to include in the draft order the recommendations regarding the composition of school management committees. The order provides for an increase in the transferors' representation on the board of governors of controlled schools. That is an increase of one in the number of Church-based or nominated representatives on the board of governors.
The view of my party and the Assembly committee was that the legislation should stipulate that at least one of the transferors' representatives should be a parent of a child currently at the school but nominated by the transferors. The effect of that would have been to give more parental representation than there is on the board of governors at present. It would have gone a long way to meet the demands of many parents to have a greater say in the education of their children. It is only to be welcomed that parents today increasingly have a greater desire to participate and to take an interest in their children's education. Therefore, I appeal to transferors to use that extra position wisely. While not required by law to give the extra place to a parent of children at the school, albeit a parent nominated by them, I hope that they will recognise the rightful case of parents for a greater say in what is going on in schools which their children attend and that they will make a generous gesture and allocate a place on the board of governors to a parent's representative.
One aspect to the draft order which caused great concern, especially among the Protestant community in Northern Ireland, has already been touched upon.
The offending article allowed for the redeployment of teachers within schools and was designed to help deal with teachers who may have been made redundant because of falling numbers. Many feared that the effect of that original article would be to allow a movement of teachers from the maintained sector—the Roman Catholic sector—into the controlled sector, which, for various reasons, not least the desire of the Roman Catholic Church to maintain a separate system of education, is staffed by a vast majority of Protestant teachers. The main concern is that while a movement from the Roman Catholic sector

into the controlled sector would have been possible, there would have been no movement in the opposite direction because of the tight hold which the Roman Catholic Church keeps on its system of education in an attempt to maintain what it calls the Catholic ethos.
Originally the order recommended that education and library boards could appeal to the Department of Education to go over the head of the board of governors of a controlled school if it were felt that it was unreasonably withholding its consent to the redeployment of teachers. Fears have been expressed that that in effect allowed the maintained and voluntary sector to offload redundancies to the controlled sector while the controlled sector would not have the same flexibility and right in redeploying teachers in the other directions. That would have been the effect of the legislation. Roman Catholic teachers would have had more access to state schools, but the agreement would not have been reciprocated. For that reason, the Assembly recommended that the article should be amended to provide for limited redeployment only in the controlled sector.
The Assembly also asked that redeployment should be extended to further education. After representations from the Assembly, the Minister went some way towards meeting its recommendations, and he said that educaition and library boards could appeal to the Department if the board of governors of a controlled school withheld its consent to the redeployment of a teacher. The Minister should have gone all the way and kept the flexibility limited to the controlled sector of education, but I suppose that half a loaf is better than no bread.
I am also concerned that the Minister ignored the recommendation that the powers of direction of the Department of Education to close schools in one Board's area should be deleted from the order. That view was held strongly by many in the Province. The issue of what is now known as the rationalisation of schools has generated much anger and resentment in the Province, not only among teachers but among parents. In this so-called rationalisation, there has been unanimity in the desire to keep many of those schools open, for many different reasons. Many people believe that the Department, by openly wielding the big stick or by gently nudging the various education and library boards in a more covert way, has been able to enforce its wishes to close schools, although the communities and their representatives could show that it was in the best interests of the communities for the schools to remain open.
Two and a half years ago the Department of Education drew up a list of about 600 schools in the Province which, it informed the boards and education authorities, were causing concern simply on the basis of numbers attending. There was no reference to the quality of education in the schools, the results obtained by the schools or to the inspectors' reports of the standard of education in the schools. The Department simply examined the number of children attending those schools, and decided to axe them on that basis. Unfortunately, because of a tightening of financial purse strings and other factors, the Department could force through the rationalisation programme in some board areas. Some boards were more willing to accept the gentle nudge than were some others.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) has explained to the House many times the difficulties in Ms constituency, and many other elected representatives have discovered increasing problems in their constituencies.


The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) could tell us about similar problems. The Assembly's report on the draft education and library order recommended the deletion of this power from the order, which would have placed the responsibility for closing schools upon the boards alone.
Democracy in Northern Ireland is not the same as it is here, because even if the decision to close schools is taken by the boards the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland are in a minority on the boards so the majority nominated by the Minister can close the schools even when the communities involved wish them to remain open.
I join the hon. Member for Upper Bann in condemning the practice whereby disruptive pupils from the maintained sector are dumped in the controlled sector. For example, when a young girl in east Londonderry got into trouble of a kind that made her church very angry she was expelled from her school despite her mother's pleas to the parish priest and the school governors, which made headlines in the newspapers. She was then sent to a controlled school in my constituency. Indeed, a number of disruptive pupils have been dumped in that same school in the heart of my constituency.
I agree entirely that disruptive pupils must be looked after properly and not left to other disruptive elements, which may encourage them to get into crime, but it is wrong that it is always a one-way street whereby disruptive pupils are moved from the maintained sector to the controlled sector but never in the opposite direction. I hope that further consideration will be given to that problem.
In conclusion, although I have dealt with certain aspects of the order with which I do not agree, I accept that the Minister has sought to respond to the representations of elected representatives in the Province and that the draft legislation has been changed as a result. I wish to put on record my deep appreciation of that.

Mr. Scott: With leave of the House, I shall reply briefly.
I shall not enter into a long debate with the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. W. McCrea) about the basis of rationalisation of schools in Northern Ireland, save to say that, grateful though I am for his closing comments, his description of both the procedure and execution of the rationalisation process was a caricature of reality. We are trying to rationalise schools in the interests of the education of today's and tomorrow's children in Northern

Ireland. I also wondered what I had done to deserve the praise lavished on me by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker), although I hope that heaping praises on my head will become a regular habit with the hon. Gentleman.
I wish to answer three specific points. If I miss any matter that has been raised, I shall be happy to write to hon. Members. I make that point especially to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) who has written to me about the needs of mentally handicapped children. I shall certainly write to him about that. Briefly, discussions are still going on in relation to the responses that we received to the consultative document issued by the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Social Services. The Assembly considered the matter—recommending, incidentally, that responsibility should remain with the Department of Health and Social Services—and we are now considering the Assembly's views and the other responses that we have received. I did not think it right to hold up the other very important aspects of the order until a conclusion was reached on that matter, although I appreciate its importance. There will, of course, be other opportunities to discuss the matter.
Despite the changes that have been made in the provision for redeployment of teachers in response to representations, there is still scope for increased flexibility. Boards will have the power to cover redeployment of teachers within their own areas and also within areas covered by other boards across Northern Ireland. Discussions are still going on between unions and employers about an agreed scheme for the redeployment of teachers, which will include more flexibility.
I hope that the new arrangements that I have outlined and the powers that the Department will have under the order to set down recognised procedures when dealing with disruptive pupils will mean that many fewer will be expelled or suspended. I do not believe that anyone would quarrel with the fact that the education and library boards have the ultimate responsibility for the education of any children who slip through the net.
The order is important, and the comments made upon it reflect that importance, as did the admirable way in which the Assembly tackled criticisms and amendments. It will be for the good both of the education system and of the children of Northern Ireland. I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 7 June, be approved.

University of Ulster

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
That the draft University of Ulster (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.
Following publication of the Government statement of 23 March 1982, in response to the final report of the higher education review group, the New University of Ulster and the Ulster polytechnic entered into discussions about the creation of a new style of higher education provision to be formed by their merger. After detailed consideration and the occasional hiccup the two institutions agreed to the merger and have since taken the necessary procedural steps to bring it about.
In November 1983, the NUU and the Ulster polytechnic jointly petitioned Her Majesty for a charter for the new university institution, to be known as the University of Ulster. The NUU also sought that, if Her Majesty were graciously pleased to assent to this petition she would, at the same time, revoke the charter of the NUU.
A copy of the petition, with the draft charter and statutes, was tabled in the House on 16 January this year. The charter contains many of the measures needed to bring about the merger and, although the charter is a matter for my noble Friend, the Lord President, there are a number of aspects to which I should like to refer briefly.
As hon. Members will be aware, this is the first merger in the United Kingdom of a university and a polytechnic and as such it has attracted a good deal of interest on this side of the Irish sea as well as in Northern Ireland. I want to re-emphasise what I have said on many previous occasions. In no sense is this merger a test bed for higher education in the United Kingdom as a whole. It is and was designed to be the answer to the special problems facing higher education in Northern Ireland. If others can learn from it, so much the better.
A unique feature of the charter is the requirement that no less often than every seven years an external review be carried out to assess how effectively the university is fulfilling the objectives laid down in its charter, and is using the resources available to it. This is of particular importance because of the wide-ranging and challenging nature of those objectives, encompassing as they do work at all levels of higher education, including research, degree and non-degree work.
The draft charter and statutes were prepared jointly by NUU and the Ulster polytechnic and at every stage in the drafting there has been wide consultation including consultation with staff and students. It is planned that the University of Ulster will be inaugurated on 1 October 1984.
If, then, Her Majesty is pleased to grant the charter to the petitioners, certain legislation is required to deal with those aspects which could not be included in the charter and to amend or repeal existing legislation affected by the murder—sorry, the merger. This short order contains these measures.
Article 3 transfers all the assets and liabilities of the New University of Ulster and Ulster polytechnic to the University of Ulster. Hon. Members will note that the article also provides for proceedings in connection with anything so transferred to be continued in the name of the

University of Ulster. I draw particular attention to the provision for Magee university college, Londonderry to be maintained as an integral part of the university of Ulster. Magee college is a higher educational establishment originally founded by the Presbyterian Church in Ireland in 1865 for the training of its clergymen. Its courses and entrants were broadened over the years and, with the establishment of the New University of Ulster in 1968, it became a part of that university under the terms of the Magee University College, Londonderry (Northern Ireland) Act 1970. Finally, the article also transfers any bequests, gifts, trusts or endowments originally made in favour of the New University of Ulster or the Ulster polytechnic to the University of Ulster.
Article 5 dissolves the statutory corporate body known as the Governors of the Ulster Polytechnic, which will not be required following the merger as its work will be subsumed in the council of the university. I am glad that some members of the present governing body will continue to serve on the university council. I was particularly pleased to note that the work of Mr. McNeill, who has been chairman of the governors of the polytechnic since it was established in 1969, is to be recognised by the conferment of an honorary degree by the New University of Ulster at its last series of graduation ceremonies in the near future. That gesture is a sign of the spirit of cooperation that has developed between the university and the polytechnic in planning the merged institution. During the 15 years of its existence, the polytechnic has gained a fine academic reputation and the admiration not only of the community in Northern Ireland but much more widely. Much of the credit for those achievements can be attributed to the leadership and influence of its governors during this period.
Article 5 makes provision for regulations to be made by the Department of Education, which would allow present employees of the New University of Ulster and Ulster polytechnic to claim compensation in certain prescribed circumstances. I shall not go into those circumstances in detail today, but essentially the article provides a means of redress should any members of staff feel that he employment offered to them does not meet the criteria envisaged by the statute.
I shall not weary the House with other minor amendments included in the order. However, I should like to pay tribute to the work and reputation of both the New University of Ulster and Ulster polytechnic. Both were established in the late 1960s in response to the recommendations of the Lockwood Committee's Report on Higher Education in Northern Ireland. The University of Ulster has determined to carry on and build upon the very best traditions of both institutions. A recent leading article in The Times Higher Education Supplement made the following comment on the qualities of the ideal university of the future:
A comprehensive university with large stakes in non-degree courses and continuing education as well as conventional degrees and research … looks very much like the kind of higher education animal that would thrive in the 1990s; an isolated university with a narrow range of courses … does not".
I firmly believe that the University of Ulster is the blueprint, perhaps even the prototype, for just such a university.
I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Clive Soley: The Opposition do not oppose the merger—indeed, we welcome it—but we have one or two anxieties and cautions about it. Perhaps we can test the Minister a little on his commitment. I was a little troubled by his slip of the tongue when he said "murder" instead of "merger". I hope that it was not a Freudian slip, in view of the Government's intentions towards public expenditure on education.
It is true that the matter has been discussed with considerable care in Northern Ireland and here. In the 1981–82 Session of Parliament, the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts examined it in some depth and made certain recommendations. I should like to draw two points to the attention of the House. First, the Committee drew attention, as the Minister did, to the importance of Magee college being given an enhanced role. There was a feeling that there had been some slippage in the availability of higher education within the city of Londonderry, which is to be regretted. I hope that the new merger will not allow that to continue and that we shall go forward in a stronger and more positive way.
Secondly, the Select Committee said in its final recommendation—I refer to the short list of recommendations in House of Commons Paper No. 557—that it intended to monitor the progress of the merger. There is considerable anxiety about whether the Government will provide sufficient funds to make the merger a success.
It is difficult and unusual to produce a successful merger. There is always the well-founded suspicion, which has been established by the Government's history, that the Government are seeking to cut public expenditure by the back door. The Northern Ireland Office, which is almost a Government in exile, tries to protect public expenditure to a limited extent—it would not normally get away with it because of the Prime Minister's philosophy—and is slightly more successful than others in so doing. Nevertheless, it is clear that the university would face problems if it had to meet all the bills that could be laid at is door as a result of the merger.
The Northern Ireland Assembly expressed anxiety about three area: the compensation that may have to be paid to lecturers or others who are not included in the New University; the transfer of polytechnic staff to the university salary scale; and superannuation. These three factors will increase expenditure, as will other problems that may result from the merger. If the university is told that it must fund them from the existing budget, it will cut back in another area.
The Government are doing what they have done in many other areas with which I have been associated—for example, the Alcohol education centre. Groups have been merged on the bizarre principle of adding their budgets together, usually as they were some years previously, and making the total the budget for the new organisation. It is never sufficient, because it does not take into account the inflation of the intervening period.
The new university may have to finance its development and carry a public expenditure burden, which is completely unplanned for. The problem involves both increased expenditure and planning for it. It is invariably difficult for a large organisation, which cannot plan its budget effectively from year to year, suddenly to meet a

bill of £500,000. It could easily be that sum or even more. The Northern Ireland Assembly quoted that figure. In those circumstances, the university would be in trouble.
Will the Minister give a clear commitment that the university will not have to meet additional payments, which may arise from the merger, such as payments of compensation, payments for the transfer of staff from polytechnic to university salary scales and for superannuation? Then we would be more confident that the Government were not making back-door public expenditure cuts.
Unless a change was made recently, the merger does not include plans for a students union. If that is still so, are the students to be left without one for the foreseeable future, will the New University have to fund one within the next few years, or are the Government prepared to consider meeting special needs payments of that sort from the reserve fund?
The lack of a union will affect the quality of the university. One of the problems was of students going to Britain or to the Republic of Ireland. If we do not provide the university with good facilities, and if it is not respected, that will continue and perhaps increase. We should be aiming for a high standard. I have always taken the view that we should not impose upon Northern Ireland lower standards than we would impose upon people in Great Britain. That is another point that the Minister should answer if only to give the students some idea of what their future will be.

Mr. Martin Flannery: My hon. Friend has mentioned the fact that the Select Committee went to Northern Ireland less than two years ago—the Minister remembers this well—to study this merger. The merger, which cannot be mentioned in the Order in Council, came about of necessity. The thriving polytechnic was almost bursting at the seams and doing wonderful work under splendid leadership. The new Ulster university could not compete. It could not help that because it did not have the number of students. We passionately want the merger to be a success, and therefore it needs money. The Labour Members of the Select Committee believe that the valuable byproduct which arose from merging a polytechnic with a university means that the ethos of the polytechnic will move towards the university. We believe profoundly that that should occur over here in the future. We believe that Northern Ireland has set the example. We want the merger to be a great success, and, for it to be so, as my hon. Friend said, it needs money.

Mr. Soley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has far more knowledge about these matters than I have. I remember that when we visited the New University some time ago we discussed the point that he has raised. There could be great possibilities along the lines that he mentioned. I do not feel that I have sufficient knowledge to be able to make a general statement on the matter, but I take his point and that made by the Select Committee. It is important, and it is one of the reasons why I hope that the Select Committee—as I am sure it will—will continue to monitor the merger. It could provide lessons for elsewhere.
There has been a continual complaint about the lack of effective consultation, and I should welcome the Minister's views about that. People feel that they have not


been able to make their voices heard effectively. There is anxiety about the parts of the budget to which I have referred. I should like to hear whether the Minister believes that the consultation has been as effective as it should have been and whether he believes that the merger can be carried out in time for the new session in 1984 without rushing matters to the point of lowering standards. Some anxiety has been expressed about that.
Apart from those points, we welcome the order. We want to see how the merger develops, but, above all, we shall be keeping our eye on whether the Government provide sufficient resources to ensure that it is a success and not something that is allowed to run into the sand because of the Government's bizarre economic policies.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The substantive aspects of the order and the merger to which it relates will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) and perhaps the other hon. Members, when they come to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
I want to restrict myself to the constitutional aspects which are thrown up by the order, and which have an application that extends beyond Northern Ireland. The House is particularly fortunate that the Leader of the House should be present to hear this as, indeed, he was present during the previous debate.
The previous debate illustrated, in one way, the principle that there is no substitute for legislation by Bill—the only way in which this Parliament makes law for the rest of the United Kingdom. The same principle happens to be illustrated in a curious fashion by the order which the Minister has just moved. If these changes were being made in the law in any other part of the United Kingdom, it would be by a Bill, which would be a hybrid Bill. The fact that certain special interests are differentially affected would result in the procedure dealing with hybrid legislation affording a full opportunity to citizens specially affected to petition the House and avail themselves of what is, in effect, the procedure adopted on private legislation.
This order, as we now know authoritatively on the word of the Lord Chairman of Committees in another place—I shall come in a moment to the circumstances in which that judgment is delivered—is a hybrid order. My hon. Friends and I became aware of this only at a relatively late stage, but I am reassured by the fact that anyone listening to the Leader of the House during Business Questions last week would have concluded that it was only last Thursday afternoon that the fact of the hybridity of the order came to the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman—whosoever the fault may have been.
It is worse than that. In a written answer in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland infornied the House that the Queen's university of Belfast (NI) Order 1981 had also been hybrid. We had a long and interesting debate on that order in this House in April 1981 without anyone in any quarter being aware that it was a hybrid order.
It cannot be satisfactory that the rights that citizens would possess if the law were being changed by means of a Bill are not available to them if it is being changed by an affirmative order, or that changes which preclude those

rights should be made by affirmative order in one part of the United Kingdom and not in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The position of the House in respect of hybridity of affirmative orders is unsatisfactory. It may perhaps be nearer to being remedied as a result of our experiences in dealing with this order. The House has no procedure for dealing with hybrid orders, unlike another place, which has such a procedure. This is not the fault of the various committees which have reported on the subject. As long ago as 1966 and 1967, the Statutory Instruments Committee drew the attention of the House
to the unsatisfactory situation arising from the fact that there is in the House of Commons no procedure for considering private objections to statutory instruments which, like Hybrid Bills, affect a particular private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category or class.
It is 17 or 18 years since it was drawn to the attention of the House that, unlike another place, we are in no position to deal with hybrid orders such as the order now before us.
That was followed by the Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation which in 1973 also drew attention to the lack of symmetry between the two Houses and tentatively suggested that the two Houses might get together to do the job collectively. It was interesting that, on that occasion, the then Second Clerk Assistant, whom we all remember—Mr. Richard Barlas—argued
that although in theory it might be desirable to extend the hybrid procedure to the House of Commons, it would not be practicable, owing to the pressure of business in that House which would take prior claim on the manpower and time available.
I do not know who put the Second Clerk Assistant up to urging those arguments on that occasion, but I do not think that either side of the House would take kindly to the suggestion that we have not the time or opportunity to provide the proper opportunities of representations to citizens who might be prejudicially affected by legislation. However, the position at the moment is that only by dint of what is done in another place can a partial remedy be provided when hybrid legislation comes forward in the form of a statutory instrument. In effect, it was on 9 June that the Lord Chairman of Committees in another place announced, with the consequent running of 14 days for petitioning against this order, that it was in his view hybrid.
I do not think that it can possibly be satisfactory that, so soon before this Bill would be taken in this House, its hybridity was thus disclosed. I do not think that an adequate opportunity was given by this procedure to those who might, upon maturer consideration, have wished to petition against the Bill.
I want therefore to put forward, within the hearing of the Leader of the House, three distinct propositions which go further than matters relating only to Northern Ireland. First, that no order which has been found to be hybrid should be placed alongside the other orders of the House without an italicised note to draw the attention of hon. Members to the status of that order. That is a simple matter and I hope that we can have an assurance in due course, when it has been considered, that that modest improvement can be made. My second proposition is that this House ought not to delay any further in providing itself with the means of dealing with hybrid statutory instruments, either co-operatively with the other place or by a separate House of Commons procedure. The third, which is a matter of special grievance and was the turn of


the knife in this case, deals with the fact that Orders in Council made under the Northern Ireland Act 1974 ironically, just because they deal with substantive legislation, do not go to the Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments. I would therefore, thirdly, put forward the proposition that in view of the special importance of these orders, they should be referred to the same Committees of both Houses as deal with other affirmative statutory instruments.
If those propositions can be, as I am sure that they will be, considered by those to whom the responsibility falls, then good will have come from what otherwise would have been merely another illustration of the unsatisfactory manner in which, at present, this House makes the law in Northern Ireland. I say "at present" because I have a certain sense that the time is coming when the penny will have dropped or the stone will have been worn away and the necessity of a uniform system of legislation for all parts of the United Kingdom will be recognised on both sides of the House. Meanwhile let us do something about hybrid statutory instruments.

Rev. William McCrea: The draft order provides a statutory basis for the merger of the Ulster polytechnic and the New University of Ulster and the dissolution of the Ulster polytechnic. It also provides compensation arrangements for staff.
After hearing representations, as have all political parties in Northern Ireland, I believe that it is important that the Government make the details of the proposed compensation arrangements available as quickly as possible so that staff in the institution have as much time as possible to consider their future employment. Some members of staff may decide, or have already decided, not to accept employment in the new institution because they believe that their new duties are not similar to, or an unreasonable addition to, those carried out prior to the merger.
There will also be funding implications as a result of the formation of the new institution, especially as a result of the new compensation arrangements. It is important for the House to hear the Minister's views on the availability of funds for these compensation payments.
In the early years, the new institution should not be strangled by financial problems. I trust that the Government will consider sympathetically the question of additional funds necessary to meet such claims. The idea of a polyversity is new and exciting. It seems to combine the best aspects of university and polytechnic education. I trust that the new institution envisaged in Northern Ireland will be a model for the rest of the United Kingdom.
Many people in Northern Ireland believe that the merger was born out of expediency. Perhaps that is true. However, what was regarded as a short-term expedient will, I believe, turn out to be an exciting educational development. To this end, I trust that the Department of Education in Northern Ireland will not simply forget about the new institution, but will seek to encourage and monitor its development and to help with the many problems that will no doubt arise from this totally new educational concept.
There will be problems, given that the new institution is on a split site, and it will have no other precedent from

which to work. However, all these problems can be overcome with good will and effort. I trust that both will be in evidence in the years to come. I look forward to this development and trust that the order will go through the House as smoothly and as quickly as humanly possible.

Mr. William Ross: I listened with interest to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the Minister said, as well as to all the other interventions. I listened with particular interest to the Minister's reference to the two institutions entering into negotiations and finally agreeing to the merger. That was a mild way of describing the methods used to bring the merger about.
If the Minister reads what I said, as reported at column 489 of the Official Report on 7 July last year, he will find that the pressure put on the university to merge was not such that it would lead one to use the language which this evening he used to describe that merger. On that occasion I described it as little more than blackmail. Nothing in the intervening period has caused me to change my view. In that debate I hung a large question mark over the cost of the merger, never mind my misgiving, which I still hold, about the success or otherwise that will flow from it.
I have, over the months since then, considered the matter carefully, and in March this year, I put down a number of written questions, some of which were answered on 7 March. I shall quote those answers to explain to the House why I believe that much of what is being said is not as clear-cut and forthcoming as one would like in regard to the details that should be made public. On 6 March, there is a question about the New University of Ulster, in which I inquired of the Minister whether he would give
the number of non-teaching administrative posts now designated and filled, and those to be filled in the institution to be created
at certain grades
and the individual designations applied to each of those posts, including posts such as dean, pro-vice chancellor, and provost which may be held on academic contracts but which are exclusively, or almost exclusively, administrative".—[Official Report, 7 March 1984; Vol. 55, c. 572.]
The Minister replied by saying that 11 such posts were designated, and that two more were following. In addition, there is the vice-chancellor, who is the chief academic and administrative officer.
At first sight, the posts of pro-vice chancellor, provost and dean are all academic posts. In truth, they are nothing of the sort. They are almost purely administrative posts in the new set-up. In a follow-up letter on 19 March, the Minister pointed out that he would insert a note that the posts that I mentioned were academic posts with significant administrative responsibility.
Because of the pressure of other things, I did not follow up that reply until recently, but I had answers to further questions yesterday, when I tried to get the Minister to separate and explain the balance between the teaching and administrative sectors of the posts designated. I was told that the information was not kept in the form in which I had requested it. If the Minister is not clear as to what the balance is, I ask him to go back to the university and the polytechnic and to make detailed inquiries to satisfy himself that these posts have a small academic input and are almost purely administrative.
The plain truth is that I have found it rather difficult to get, in clear, straightforward terms, the information that should be made public about this proposed measure and the administration and other costs that go with it. I alleged a year ago that the costs of the merger would be high. I said that the extra money that was needed to meet the increased superannuation payments could be between £8 million and £13 million, and probably about £10 million. The latest information that I have shows that the sum will work out at about £15 million. This sum appears nowhere in all the figures that I have sought regarding the costs of the merger.
It is alleged that the Government will pick up the tab for those increased superannuation payments. If that is se, it is still public money and will come out of something. It will not grow on trees, and we deserve an answer to know what the cost of the superannuation will be and where all this will come from.
The answers to the written questions that I put down for answer yesterday implied that certain other costs were rising. Those sums are not as accurate as one would wish. Perhaps the Minister has precisely answered my question, but I believe that there is a case for further information.
For example, the Minister, in a written answer today, has told me that the University of Ulster employs 722 full-time staff, of whom 35 are in administrative grades, and that 28 members of staff, of whom 11 are in specified administrative grades, are seeking premature retirement during the period 1 June to 30 September 1984. The total cost to the 'Department is expected to be about 860,000, of which £225,000 relates to the administrative group.
The problem is that those involved in the merger have until the end of September 1985 to apply for premature retirement. Once the merger takes place, all those who will be upgraded from polytechnic to university status can apply for the handsome sums under the excellent scheme laid down. We can expect a considerable number to apply. Therefore, I expect the sum quoted to double. Perhaps the Minister could make further inquiries and give me rather more information than has hitherto been given.
All the teaching staff will have university salaries. The remaining administrative staff have all been upgraded. A considerable number of them are either retiring or moving elsewhere. It is a fruitful area for the Minister's research. No doubt he will make inquiries and try to find out how many of the remaining administrative staff have been upgraded and how much is the cost in additional salaries. No doubt he can tell us in great detail the forecast for the salaries of the teaching staff during the next 12 months.
About half the senior administrative staff are either leaving or have already left. Those who have retired or are about to retire include all the accountants employed by the university. Through good housekeeping, the university has built up reserves of £1·5 million, so we are concerned that the continuity that the accountants would have provided has now disappeared.
Magee college is an institution in which I have a great deal of interest as I have represented the city of Londonderry for nine years in the House. The protocouncil organisation has overseen the merger. It does not, as far as I am aware, have either money or power. Yet I am informed—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—that that organisation has already briefed architects to provide plans to develop Magee, I presume on the basis of a newspaper report; and the sum of £4 million for new build has been mentioned. I want to know,

who had the authority to engage the architects; are they still engaged; who is paying them; and have they been paid to date? Has the university grants committee been involved in this matter at any level? Where is the academic plan for Magee college, which I understand has not yet appeared? What cost limits have been applied, either by the Government or the UGC, to any building work that is to be done at Magee in the city of Londonderry? From where is the £4 million to come?
May we be told what effect that spending, if it takes place, will have on Jordanstown and Coleraine, where there has been little spending, particularly in Coleraine, in recent years? What development is to take place in Coleraine? If there are cost limits for each of the three campuses, perhaps the university authorities and the general public, as well as the House, could be given the figures, so that we may have some idea where we are going. Without that information, we are in the dark as to where this whole institution is proceeding.
One of the great benefits of Coleraine university lies in the fact that, for the first time in Northern Ireland, we had a secular teacher training organisation to which Roman Catholic trainee teachers went. It was a tremendous step forward, it was most welcome and it was no mean achievement. Have we a guarantee from the church authorities that they will allow this teacher training facility to be used in future by their young men and women in the new institution? If not, that in itself will cause the most severe problems for the educational facility in the Coleraine campus.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who said that the Labour party wanted these measures. When the polytech was set up in Northern Ireland—I am sure that the same can be said of the rest of the United Kingdom—such institutions were not seen as university bodies. They were seen as bodies to underpin the university structure. If that concept has now been forsaken, not only by this Government but by the Labour party, we should be told that in plain terms, so that higher education in this country may know that the polytechs as originally set up do not have a future, that the long-term prospects of their existing as separate bodies are nil and that it is the intention to merge them all into sort of polytech-university bodies.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I said that the Labour side of the Select Committee, faced with this necessity, wanted this to be a success and thought that it could be a pointer to the future over here. That is different from saying that the Labour party laid that down. It has not.

Mr. Ross: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for misrepresenting him. The House will have noted from his comments the direction in which he would like things to go.
The New University of Ulster, despite what the hon. Member for Hillsborough appears to think, was up to target. The plans for the development of that university had been met, and any shortcomings that occurred arose from the shortfall in funding from which the university suffered. The numbers were going up and have continued to rise and there is at present a healthy situation on that campus.
We are now talking about a new body which will exist on three different campuses. We hear stories about a major


development at Magee. One begins to wonder where higher education in Northern Ireland is going if we are to wind up with Queen's university the major university, in Belfast, and another university spread over three campuses, each, no doubt, with its own specified, strictly controlled courses, which will amount to three small universities. We cannot have a cohesive unit that is spread from Londonderry to Jordanstown to Coleraine.
I have never been happy with the merger. I have accepted it with ill grace because it was forced on us. I was glad to hear the Under-Secretary of State say that the order provides for a review after seven years. I was giving this set-up a maximum of 10 years before we had to go back to the drawing board. Perhaps we shall be back to the drawing board in seven years, when something sensible might be done with the Coleraine, Londonderry and Jordanstown campuses.

Mr. Scott: I shall deal first with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) about the hybridity of this order and his general points about the way in which the House does not deal with hybrid orders. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was present throughout his remarks. He has said that he will study Hansard and give a considered view of the various proposals put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. It is not for me to enter into that matter, except to say that within the existing rules the Government did their best to ensure that those who needed to be alerted to the problem of hybridity were notified by the normal procedures of publishing notices in the press and sending out circulars to those who had raised points about the order. We did our best within the existing rules to deal with that matter, but I accept that that does not meet the right hon. Gentleman's points.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Were there notices in the Northern Ireland press, which would be the relevant place for them to appear? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not the case, as I believe was inadvertently stated by the Secretary of State, that the notice was sent to all who had received copies of the proposals for the order, for they were certainly not received by right hon. and hon. Members who, of course, automatically receive proposals?

Mr. Scott: I am advised that advertisements were placed in the Northern Ireland papers, as well as published in the Belfast Gazette. Notices were sent to the institutions, but I understand that they were not sent to right hon. and hon. Members. There have been only three such orders since 1974, but I underline my right hon. Friend's commitment to look at the matter and give a considered judgment in due course.
I shall make a general point. The Government would not have embarked on the road of setting up a new institution in Northern Ireland unless they were wholeheartedly committed to the concept and wanted to see it as a notable success for the future of higher education in the Province. The merger was not introduced to save money. Its aim was to provide a rational pattern for higher

education in Northern Ireland. I believe that we now have the basis for that rational pattern, and the Government are committed to ensuring that it is a success.
Of course, I cannot give commitments about the level of public expenditure which may be available from year to year. The commitment of level funding for the first year of the institution's life in effect means that the new institution has been exempted from many of the pressures imposed in recent years on universities on this side of the water. The institution has got off to a good start. From there on it will obviously have the advice of the Northern Ireland working party on higher education which has been established so that there is some local input into the judgments of the University Grants Committee. On that front, there is a commitment in terms of political will and funding for the institution.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) raised a point about the student union. Provision is made for the student union in the statutes attached to the charter for the new institution. Financing of the student union will be done in the normal way by the university, as with any other university.

Mr. Soley: The Minister is not giving a clear answer to the questions that I raised on salaries and superannuation. Will the Government pay those or do they expect the new university to fund them out of existing money? A similar question applies to the student union.

Mr. Scott: The existing university and polytechnic have student unions funded in the normal way, and so will the new institution. We have made special provision in that the Department has said that it will provide a further £360,000 towards the extra superannuation costs. That will be a protection. The steering group, which presided over the merging of the two institutions, said that within level funding it could cope with other costs. If compensation costs were to be at a level which put that commitment under strain, I would look sympathetically at any request for extra funding on those fronts. It is too early to make a judgment on that. Indeed, in general compensation terms we have not even established the final shape of any scheme. We shall be publishing a consultation paper shortly. That was mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). Then we can see what sort of basis there will be for compensation regulations, in time judge what the burden is likely to be and see whether it is necessary for my sympathy to be exercised towards the new institution. We have responded generously. Taking into account the judgment of the steering group that many other things could be coped with within level funding, we have not been ungenerous in our approach to many problems that undoubtedly are created when facing a merger of this sort.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) has never shown particular enthusiasm for the merger. I was not surprised today that he raised a number of points. Many of them were addressed to the wrong person. Many could be matters for the Department of Education and Science on this side of the water, for the University Grants Committee, which will have a major role in funding the institution in future, for the steering group and for the proto-council and proto-senate and the new council and senate of the new institution when it comes into effect. I shall read the points that he made. If I can elaborate on any


of my answers I will. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I was anxious to give him such answers as I could obtain in time for the debate.
However, many of the points are really no longer for me. The role of the Department and myself was to see that this merger, which is essential for the future of higher education in Northern Ireland, took place. This is not a university that will be controlled by Government. Much of the work in setting it up was done by an independent steering group. It will be launched on 1 October this year. I assure the hon. Member for Hammersmith that there is no problem about meeting that date in good order, when the new institution will be operating under its own steam.
I was slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman asked about consultation. Not only has there been widespread consultation by the Chilver committee which was looking into higher education in Northern Ireland as a whole, but once Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer took over the steering group, he was at pains to travel the Province on a wide basis, to make it known when he was there that his door was open to any representations that had to be be made, and to encourage consultation with staff, students and those in authority in the different institutions, and, indeed, all those who had any interest in the future of higher education. Lack of consultation cannot be laid at the door of the Department and still less at the door of the steering group which was responsible for bringing the new institution to its present stage.
In conclusion, I pay tribute to the many people who have worked so hard to bring about the merger which is being brought about in part by this order today and in part by the petition to the Privy Council. The unique union was guided by a steering group under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, and its immensely complex task with many difficulties along the road was virtually completed within two years. That was a remarkable achievement. Frankly, I do not think that anybody else would have been able to achieve it in the way that Sir Peter did. I should like to record my thanks to him and to all the members of the steering group for a job well done in an exceptionally short time.
The work of knitting the two institutions together will fall to the council and staff of the university and in particular to the vice-chancellor designate, Mr. Derek Birley. One of the most gratifying aspects of the past two years, with all the difficulties that he has faced, has been the way in which the staff from both institutions at all levels have come together to plan the courses and the faculty structures for the University of Ulster. That work has been fostered by Derek Birley, but of course his work and that of the University of Ulster is only just beginning. In the creation of a new university, tuned to the economic, social and commercial needs of Northern Ireland and its young people, I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in wishing Derek Birley and the University of Ulster well as they set their hands to this task.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved.
That the draft University of Ulster (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.

Industrial Training (Northern Ireland)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move,
That the draft Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.
This is an important and seemingly fairly lengthy order. Nevertheless, its purpose is relatively simple. In my opening remarks I shall deal with its main provisions, and doubtless the finer details will be teased out as the House wishes during the debate.
The draft order originated from the need to have statutory authority for the implementation of some decisions reached as a result of the review of industrial training arrangements in Northern Ireland, which was completed in September 1982. The review, which paralleled a similar review in Great Britain, considered not only which sectors of industry should be retained under statutory control, but the future role and composition of the Northern Ireland Training Executive and its relationship to individual sectors of industry.
It may be helpful to explain that the Northern Ireland Training Executive provides a common administrative and secretarial service to the industrial training boards. That is a sensible arrangement as the boards in Northern Ireland are much smaller than those in Great Britain. By agreement, the executive has during the years developed some aspects of training that are applicable to more than one industrial sector. During the review, the majority of interests in the Province supported the retention of individual industrial training boards, where the industries themselves wished the boards to remain. They also supported the redefinition and extension of the role of the Northern Ireland Training Executive.
Bearing in mind the views of those interests, and the size of the industrial base in Northern Ireland, it was decided that the industrial training boards, with the exception of the man-made fibres-producing industry training board and the footwear sector of the clothing and footwear board should be retained. It was made clear, however, that it would be the Government's policy to encourage the development, on a continuing basis, of voluntary training arrangements in sectors within the scope of the remaining eight industrial training boards, where those were desired by a sector, and to remove such a sector from scope where proposals for such arrangements were strong enough to provide effective training. In addition, it was concluded that the role of the Northern Ireland Training Executive should be redefined and extended, and that the new body should be called the Northern Ireland Training Authority.
The proposed draft order will re-enact the Industrial Training Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 and incorporate amendments concerning principally the setting up of the new Northern Ireland Training Authority and the regulation of levies for the industrial training boards. Other proposed amendments will bring the powers of the boards in Northern Ireland into closer alignment with their counterparts in Great Britain.
First, I shall outline the provisions for the new training authority, which will replace the existing Northern Ireland Training Executive. It is the Government's intention through the order to create a dynamic body to encourage


the further development of industrial training in the Province. The authority will have the duty to keep under review all training in the statutory and non-statutory private sectors, and to report to the Department of Economic Development, as well as to the sectors concerned. Another important function will be that of encouraging voluntary training arrangements in sectors not within scope of a board so that appropriate and effective training will be provided. It will also have the responsibilities of developing and promoting new techniques of training and training in new technology, and of providing advice on such training.
In addition to those duties, the authority will have the power to provide training generally, including the provision of courses and other facilities and the payment of grants, fees and allowances. The authority will be obliged to develop links with the public sector and to cooperate in the provision of relevant training in that sector when requested. These functions will be in addition to those already carried out by the Northern Ireland Training Executive—the provision of a central administrative and secretarial service for all industrial training boards and cross-sector training—and clearly represent a major extension of the role of the executive.
As a result of that extension, the membership of the authority will be enhanced. It will also reflect the close relationship of the industrial training boards with the authority. It is therefore proposed that the membership should consist of a chairman, the chairmen of the industrial training boards as ex-officio members, three representatives of employers, three representatives of employees, three persons with expertise in training or education, and one representative of the public sector.
The authority will receive its finance from three sources—the industrial training boards will pay for services provided; income will be derived from the sale of similar services to the non-statutory and public sectors; and the Government will contribute towards the cost of functions which have a wider purpose than meeting the direct training needs of those boards and voluntary organisations using the services of the authority. Initially, pump-priming funds will also be available to help the authority become established.
I think that that deals with the main purpose of the order. The individual articles are clearly laid out and supported by the usual explanatory note. The House will forgive me if I do not deal with them individually at this time of night but simply conclude by saying that I consider that this order, by setting up the new Northern Ireland Training Authority and by extending the responsibilities of the industrial training boards, will create the correct structure for the development of training in Northern Ireland to provide the appropriate skilled work force so necessary for the growth of the economy.

Mr. Peter Archer: This is another example of the consequences of direct rule by unamendable order. It is a great pity that with so much time and attention pre-empted for discussion of constitutional and security issues matters which evoke passionate political debate on this side of the water are relegated to this hour.
This order embodies a view of training for our industrial future and of the whole responsibility of Government which I believe is profoundly wrong and should be challenged. There is a gaping divide between the Government and the Labour party on this issue and it deserves a longer and more searching debate than we can give it today.
The document on which the order is based sets out the Government's philosophy. Its very title—"Training for the Future"—should be a warning to us because it is a tautology. Training, by definition, cannot be for anything other than the future, but nodoubt the Government chose that title to insinuate the implication that it was a forward-looking document when in fact it reflects a view wholly consistent with the Prime Mininster's admiration for the Victorian era. It is a hymn of praise to the voluntary system. If that is criticism from my lips, I do not suppose that it would be regarded as criticism by the Minister, because the Government clearly accept it. The foreword by the Secretary of State expressly says so.
That document embodies the belief that the Government's best contribution to industry is to stand by passively and that employers are the best judges of their own interests and should therefore decide these matters. The fallacy of that is not just that other people such as employees, consumers and future generations may have an interest in the outcome. It overlooks the fact that when people are asked to make decisions individually, knowing that their competitors are making similar decisions, they are virtually driven to decide to contribute the least that they can get away with because otherwise their competitors may contribute less and thus secure a competitive advantage. If they are asked to participate collectively in the decisions, that fear, at least, is removed. There is thus a wide chasm at the outset between the Government's approach and the approach that we would wish to see.
The difference begins to show itself as soon as we start to examine the details. On the proposed provision for membership of boards to which the Minister directed our attention, article 14 refers us to schedule 2, which explains their composition. There is to be a chairman and an equal number of members representing respectively employers and employees. Certain others will represent neither category but, through their competence or their goodness, commend themselves to the Northern Ireland Office. The hon. Gentleman properly explained how it was proposed to select them.
That appears to be a most fair arrangement until one recollects that the chairman who will hold the balance between employer and employee representatives is almost always himself a representative of employers. That is not disputed. It cannot be. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions made that point in- written representations on the consultation document and repeated them in written evidence to the Assembly committee, pointing out that imbalance. When Mr. Mayne the under-secretary was giving oral evidence the point was put to him. He replied:
The situation of course is that the chairman of the retraining board is not representing employers.
He went on to say:
It is true to say that traditionally the majority of chairmen of training boards have been employers.
The chairman may not be there with instructions to represent employers. He may even be trying to be fair. But the purpose of having as chairman a human being and not


a robot is that he will have the opinions, habits, interests and prejudices that go to make up any of us. And they will be derived from his experience and interests as an employer.
The decision to compose boards in that way is not that of a Government who even wish to be seen to make balanced arrangements. The third category of members who commend themselves to the Northern Ireland Office as it is presently composed is hardly likely to include many who have been outspoken as champions of employees' rights. It is small wonder that the trade unions resent the proposal.
It gets worse as it goes on. One of the most important duties of a board is to decide on proposals for a levy. Those who decide on the amount of the levy will be deciding on the amount of resources that a board will have available, and so to a great extent the measure of its activities. When we read paragraph 8 of the schedule, which is tucked away modestly among the provisions, we learn that employee representatives on the boards are not entitled to vote on any matter relating to the imposition of a levy. So the question of how much employers are to claim for the training of employees is to be decided by employers. I was always taught that for anyone to be judge in his own cause was the reverse of natural justice, but here it is the reverse of effectiveness.
As the Irish Congress of Trade Unions points out, the need for industrial training boards arises because employers do not always make proper provision, which is essential if the country is to compete with other industrial nations.
The order makes it clear that there is to be a remission of levy, which may extend to total remission, for those employers who comply with their obligations, that is to say, even the obligations as defined by the employer representatives of the board.
The Government, in accordance with their philosophy, would prefer employers to make their own provisions individually. So the levy that we are considering is, by definition, to be paid by those employers who do not make appropriate provision for training, yet the rate is to be decided by employers' representatives. It is as though penal policy were to be decided by a committee of three, two of whose members were Mr. Fagin and Bill Sykes.
The more we consider the implications, the more worrying they become. The running costs of the board will no longer be paid by the Government. They will be returned to industry. In the depths of recession, when many companies are struggling to survive, the running costs are to be returned to industry. That proposal is denounced in the annual reports of virtually all of the boards.
The levy will need to make provision for the running costs, and the levy applied for this purpose will be a maximum of 0·2 per cent. of the payroll. But the running costs have always been greater than 0·2 per cent. of the payroll, so the intention is clearly to bring about a reduction in the activity of the boards.
There is no end to it. Even the employer representatives on the boards are not to have the last word. The Department may set aside their view if the relevant employer organisation considers that the provision which it proposes is too generous. As the Irish Congress of Trade Unions states, that might have been a reasonable response had there been any evidence of profligacy by the boards in the past, but of course there is not a shred of evidence

that in the past the boards have diverted too high a proportion of industries' resources into training. That has not been the problem of British industry in its efforts to compete with the rest of the world.
Clearly the Government do not really like public provision for training at all; they would like to return it entirely to the hands of individual employers. Training should mean picking up the job by sitting next to Nellie. The Government cannot wholly dismantle the system, but they can draw the teeth, and they expect our industry to compete with other countries, where Governments see such provision as a very important part of their responsibility.
The order has missed another great opportunity. In its response to the consultation document, the Equal Opportunities Commission stated that women in Northern Ireland are disadvantaged in employment perhaps to an even greater extent than elsewhere. Women comprise about 40 per cent. of the work force, and are largely trapped in low-skill and low-paid jobs. Girls are substantially more likely than boys to leave school without the technical and scientific skills that would enable them to qualify for apprenticeships or other forms of training. Of the 2,000 places available for apprentices between 1980 and 1982, no more than 10 were taken by women. Of those released by employers for part-time study, only 13 per cent. were women.
The Equal Opportunities Commission responded to the consultative paper by calling for
a concerted programme to combat inequalities and for positive action to compensate for the effects of past practices which have been detrimental to women.
The EOC spoke of flexible hours for training courses, increased contact with schools, less rigid age conditions for apprenticeships, supportive counselling and day care facilities for children. Where in the order is there a word of response, a word of recognition, a word even of encouragement to the boards to take cognisance of all that? The consultative document was called "Training for the Future". It would have been more appropriate to call it "Training for a return to the Past".

Mr. Roy Beggs: I should like to take this opportunity to offer congratulations from these Benches to the Minister on his appointment as Privy Councillor.
I welcome the draft Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 in that it makes provision for Northern Ireland similar to that already existing for the rest of the United Kingdom, as laid down by the Industrial Training Act 1982. However, I emphasise that I resent—and members of my party resent—the need for such separate legislation, particularly at this time of the morning.
The main difference in the provisions proposed for Northern Ireland from those already existing for Great Britain is the establishment of a new body with enhanced powers, to be known as the Northern Ireland Training Authority, which will replace the Northern Ireland Training Executive, established under the Industrial Training Act (Northern Ireland) 1964. It is appropriate that after 20 years in which the Northern Ireland Training Executive fulfilled its role with distinction, progress should be made to meet present and future demands in industrial training.
We in Northern Ireland welcome the opportunities arising from the establishment of the Northern Ireland Training Authority, and will demonstrate, although to some extent we are being used as guinea pigs, that although at present in Great Britain there is no analogous body to either the Northern Ireland Training Executive or the proposed Northern Ireland Training Authority, we can create and develop such a body to the benefit of industrial training in Northern Ireland so that other regions of the United Kingdom will wish to learn from our success and example.
The opportunity under section 6 for the Northern Ireland Training Authority to develop and promote new techniques of training and training in new technology should be advantageous to the 120,000 people unemployed and to the numerous school leavers and graduates unable to find employment. Some feel forced to emigrate to find work. Regrettably, we continue to have a severe brain drain from Northern Ireland. That is our loss, and we hope that it will be arrested.
I hope that the new body will seek at an early date to review training programmes and basic skills for existing industry, and to research the new skills required for today's and future silicon valleys. I hope that the Northern Ireland Training Authority will harness the talent of our people, and develop their skills through new imaginative training programmes so that the skill resource inherent in them will prove of equal importance to the excellent industrial incentives in operation and, thus, help to attract new business ventures and create jobs.
Levies on industry are never popular. Many are seen as a form of tax on jobs. It is appropriate that the system of levy remission should be incorporated into legislation for the proposed administrative system. Small businesses—two or three-men operations—cannot afford a further indirect tax on jobs. Most of them do not make use of the industrial training facilities at present provided. They poach trained personnel from larger employers.
Section 17 is headed "Training for employment overseas". It would be interesting to know the details of previous uptake in that area and whether an effort was made to attract and provide training for student apprentices from the Third world or other countries. Will the Minister tell us whether there is provision, for example, for reciprocation of training opportunities within European Community countries? I believe that the interchange of experience would be beneficial for our young people, especially if useful, industrial experience gained outside Northern Ireland could be passed on when they return to Northern Ireland.
It is difficult to identify controversial provision in the draft order. Nevertheless, under article 29 it is ridiculous to propose further icing on the cake to that which is already enjoyed by firms that operate in enterprise zones by suggesting that we are not carrying on business. It seems that enterprise zone operators have a friend at court.
Finally, I wish the Northern Ireland Training Authority and all who serve on it success and satisfaction in the task which they face in providing for the industrial and training needs of Northern Ireland.

Rev. William McCrea: I join with the House and the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs)

in congratulating the Minister upon his elevation to the Privy Council. I trust that our response to the order will be as pleasant as possible for him.
The order is the outcome of a long and detailed review of training arrangements in Northern Ireland. The review has taken into account the Government's national proposals for new training initiatives and was undertaken in close co-operation with a wide range of interested organisations. The major change brought about by the order is the replacement of the existing Northern Ireland Training Executive by the Northern Ireland Training Authority, a new body with enhanced powers.
The new authority will take over the centralised administrative functions of the industrial training boards and will have wide responsibilities for reviewing the training needs of industry and encouraging the development of training arrangements with the non-statutory and public sector, as well as developing and promoting new training techniques and training in new technology.
The matter has been discussed by the Northern Ireland Assembly, which recommended three changes to the order. I am pleased to say that the Assembly's success rate has been high, as two out of three of its recommendations have been accepted completely by the Secretary of State and are embodied in the order, and an undertaking has been given to respect the spirit of the third recommendation.
Some dangers must be highlighted, and I trust that the Government will take note of them. The membership of the Northern Ireland Training Authority will be such that any new statutory training board that is set up will be allowed to have its chairman as a member of the authority. That point was mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). It has been pointed out that that could lead to an imbalance on the training authority in favour of employers, as the chairmen of most industrial training boards tend to be employer representatives and therefore in time an authority could develop which was in favour of employers rather than fairly represented the wide range of interests within industry.
I am pleased that the Secretary of State, in response to the Northern Ireland Assembly's representation on the matter, is willing to keep the matter under careful review and has promised that, should the Government consider at any time that the chairmen of the boards were unjustifiably frustrating the wishes or decisions of the other members, the position would be rectified by the Department. That statement by the Secretary of State has allayed genuine fears.
The second point that I feel must be highlighted relates to the danger that the work of training boards may be threatened by the percentage of their levy that firms will be able to retain in the form of a remission. Under the present proposals, firms could receive remissions of up to 0·2 per cent. of their payroll. If every firm received that amount of remission, it has been submitted that most training boards could not exist. The maximum permissible levy was 1 per cent. of the firms' payroll, but at the moment few boards are charging that.
Most small firms would be exempt, though there is no set limit on which firms would be exempt. That varies from industry to industry. The limit for exemption depends upon the amount of money paid out by a firm each week in wages, and is set by each industrial training board.


Clearly, those industrial training boards which cover mainly small firms will have to have a much lower threshold than those which cover mainly larger firms.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East has referred to enterprise zones. Firms located in enterprise zones will be exempt from the payment of levies to industrial training boards and from the supplying of statistics and information about training to the board or to any authority. There is a real fear that firms will renege on any responsibility for training by locating within enterprise zones. Every effort must be made to educate enterprise zone companies about the standards of training acceptable in the statutory sector, and to encourage them to achieve and maintain such standards by making use of the services and facilities provided by the Northern Ireland Training Authority. It is important that firms in enterprise zones do not simply forget about their important role in maintaining a skilled work force, and poach workers from firms which have trained them.
Small firms are adversely affected by the time-consuming burden of training returns. It is appreciated that there is a need for such information, which forms the basis for educated policy and planning decisions, but I sympathise with the frustration felt by small business men and women who are obliged to deal with the demands of bureaucracy, which unfortunately divert their attention from the task of building up their firms and ensuring that they continue to function.
Requests to employers for information should be limited as far as possible, and the number of approaches made to companies by the Department should be minimised. The Government have, I am glad to say, declared their interest in alleviating the burden of paperwork imposed on firms. I am sure that every hon. Member finds unbearable the increasing burden of struggling under a mountain of paperwork. I trust that our firms will. find themselves more free to tackle their principal task of producing goods as competitively and efficiently as possible.
Other hon. Members may wish to raise other aspects of industrial training. One of the great assets of Northern Ireland is the skilled work force which it possesses. Any legislation which seeks to protect the position of that work force and to ensure that a skilled work force will be available in future in the Province is to be welcomed. At present, the statutory training boards cover only 45 per cent. of the work force in Northern Ireland. I trust that the order will give the encouragement needed to lead to an extension of industrial training facilities to the remaining 55 per cent., which is mainly in the public sector or in certain sections of industry which rely at present on voluntary training. Some of those areas train their employees very well—I am thinking of the teachers and the nurses, for instance—but there is still a large area where there is at present no form of training.
We must balance the need for a trained industrial work force with a recognition of the fact that this control must lead to a huge and unnecessary burden of paperwork, especially for small employers. I trust that, in the administration of the order, the correct balance will be reached and that the excellent work that has been done by the industrial training boards—our appreciation should be put on record—will continue under the new Northern Ireland Training Authority.

Mr. Butler: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On a personal note, I thank the hon. Members for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) for their congratulations. I greatly appreciate what they said. The right hon. and learned Member or Warley, West (Mr. Archer) has also and separately congratulated me. I equally appreciate that. Having said that nicely to him, I must say that I find a considerable difference in tone between what he uttered from the Opposition Front Bench and what the two hon. Members from Northern Ireland said. It struck me that their approach was much more realistic. It was certainly more supportive and I think that they have a better grasp of the situation in Northern Ireland than perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman has.
The question whether we should be debating this matter was raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, East. Presumably he was running the normal line of the Official Unionists and was saying that his party would have preferred legislation to cover the whole of the United Kingdom. That would have provided arrangements for Northern Ireland that would not have been at all appropriate. The result would have been several different training boards and certainly not the Northern Ireland Training Authority, which is most appropriate to Northern Ireland's needs and is unique to Northern Ireland. He is as aware as anybody of the work done by the Assembly committee which shadows the Department of Economic Development and from which the order originates. That was good work. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster told us of the recommendations made by that committee. Two thirds have been accepted and, in respect of one third, the Government have said that they will treat the amendment in good spirit.
I find myself in tune with what the hon. Member for Antrim, East said about the need to harness the talents of the people of Northern Ireland. He and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster made some important points. I especially noted one in regard to the reciprocation of training in EC countries. Certain courses have been used for catering training in West Germany. My Department will encourage reciprocation whenever it is feasible. There is a special point in regard to people who are to work overseas. In many cases, they will work for the benefit of the Province, so nobody would quarrel with their benefiting from our training arrangements.
The hon. Members for Antrim, East and for Mid-Ulster mentioned small firms. I note what they said. It is difficult to decide how to cope with them. I know from my industrial experience that small firms tend to sit back, let the bigger ones do the training and then poach from them. However, there is much to be said for exempting smaller firms up to a given limit. I also agree with the need to balance requests for information to avoid burdening small firms with too much bureuacratic bumf.
I found the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West a somewhat sour little piece. Much of his criticism seemed to be drawn from the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. In some respects, he was completely off the track. He was critical of the make-up of the training boards and said that the employers would now decide the levy.
The constitution of the boards, both in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has been the same for the last 20 years.


So far as I am aware, during the time that it was in power, the Labour party made no attempt to alter this. The balance has been one of equality between employer and employee representatives, with the addition of educationalists. Even without the educationalists, and given the 50–50 balance between employer and employee representatives, the chairman would have the casting vote. That has not changed.

Mr. Archer: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. May I seize the opportunity of saying what a pleasure it is to be able to use that term of him? I confess that previously I had overlooked the good news, but the fact that my congratulations are belated does not make them any less sincere.
My point about the employers deciding the levy had nothing to do with the balance of the boards. It was that paragraph 8 of schedule 2 says that employee representatives shall not vote in deciding the levy.

Mr. Butler: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his personal remarks.
As I said, the position has not changed over these years, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing a hare which should not be pursued.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was also concerned about the representation on the authority, and pooh-poohed the fact that the chairmen of the industrial training boards could be employee representatives, although the greatest number have been employers. He pooh-poohed the fact that they might not fairly represent the boards of which they are chairmen. That is an unfair attack on such chairmen. They are ex-officio, and it will be their responsibility to reflect the feelings of their boards.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was also concerned about a lessening of the statutory sector. His Socialist approach would, of course, always prefer the maximum amount of bureaucracy. If adequate training can be brought about without the necessity for statutory boards, surely even he would prefer thereby to forgo the administrative cost, which could be up to 20 per cent. of the whole, just for the sake of some bureaucratic interference.
The Government see this legislation in the context of ensuring that training is maximised and carried out as effectively as possible. There will be no lessening of the statutory sector unless or until those voluntary arrangements can be seen to be well organised, well worked out and likely to be effective.
In his condemnation of this small piece of legislation, the right hon. and learned Gentleman failed even to mention the new training authority. That was most remiss of him. It has an enhanced role and a remit over the whole private sector. For the first time, it will be required to liaise with the public sector. The hon. Member for Antrim, East reminded us that it will be promoting new techniques and training including training in new technology. No one can

describe that as training for a return to the past. It looks forward very much to the future, and in that spirit I again commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That during the proceedings on the matter of rural affairs in Wales, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which they shall meet; and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 67 (Meetings of Standing Committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock nor continue after the Committee have considered the matter for two hours at that sitting.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79 (5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES

That the draft Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

VALUE ADDED TAX

That the Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 736), dated 24th May 1984, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 80(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents.)

INTEGRATED MEDITERRANEAN PROGRAMMES

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 5978/83 and corrigendum, 8931/83, and 10370/83 and corrigendum and considers that any proposals for Integrated Mediterranean Programmes should be implemented within the framework of the existing Structural Funds of the Community.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE (LINDANE)

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8721/83, a proposal for a Council Directive of limit values and quality objectives for discharges of hexachlorocyclohexane and in particular lindane; and affirms the need for a directive which takes proper account of scientific knowledge and fully reflects the provisions of Council Directive 76/464/EEC, thus permitting the continuation of United Kingdom water pollution control practices by the system of water quality objectives.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Norfolk Schools (Public Entertainment)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak in this Adjournment debate about the application of licensing laws regarding public entertainment in schools in Norfolk. I make it clear that this matter is causing concern not only in Norfolk but in other parts of the country. I am also grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), for attending this debate at this late hour, and I am looking forward to his reply.
The villain of the piece is the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, part I and schedule 1. The first mention of this problem in the national press was under the headline, "Jowett's cause lost at Balliol".
It said:
A law designed primarily to control public sex displays has brought to an end a century-old musical tradition at Balliol College, Oxford … The musical evening was started in 1884 by the college's eminent Victorian Master, Dr. Benjamin Jowett.
Unfortunately, this matter is part of a deeper problem. Recently I was sent a list of Government requirements on local authorities over the past four years. There are 89 articles on the list, including the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. At a time when we are rightly trying to contain public expenditure, this flood of Government work emanating from Government Departments must be wrong.
I shall read extracts from letters from head teachers in Norfolk. First, a letter from the headmaster at the Larkman middle school in Norwich, writing to friends of the school, said:
On behalf of the children, staff and governors of this school, I would have liked to invite you to our Carol Concert this Christmas.
Unfortunately, the rigorous licensing requirements of the Local Authority (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, which came into force this year, have meant that schools are no longer exempt from the need to obtain a licence for public entertainment."
Another head teacher wrote to me saying:
the Act's ramifications are causing distress and anxiety to many heads and PTAs … It is very sad that I am now expected to exclude people who are not parents, but normally very caring, interested and supportive to our school, because of a wretched licence.
As I said, concern is not confined to schools in Norfolk.
The chairman of the Norfolk Federation of Parent Teachers Associations, Mr. Richard Bird, has shown me letters that he has received from as far away as Lancashire and Gwent demonstrating further dismay and confusion. The head teachers and colleagues in the country primary school in Alkborough, near Scunthorpe, have written to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saying:
How can all this be justified when the school premises are already passed as fit for normal school activities?
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary may wonder, particularly at this hour of the morning, how all this fuss started. It started in Norfolk with a letter to head teachers from the county education officer dated November 1983.
This letter states that:
The previous legislation for licensing premises for music and dancing did not apply to premises that were used only

occasionally for such purposes and schools normally did not require a licence for such occasions as the annual P.T. A. dance. Schools are no longer exempt from the need to obtain a licence even if the premises are to be so used on only a single occasion … If admission to the event is confined to pupils and teachers, or pupils, teachers and parents of pupils, no licence would be required for it, but if admission is extended to others, then a licence would be required.
From this time forward, concern in Norfolk schools has steadily increased. In correspondence with myself and other hon. Members, Ministers have given a slightly different interpretation of the Act, which if confirmed and amplified might reduce the concern and remove pressure that might otherwise arise for legislation to exempt schools from the provisions of the Act.
In a letter dated 2 April 1984 to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley), whom I am delighted to see supporting me this evening, my hon.
Friend the Minister said:
it is unlikely that a district council would view an entertainment in a school hall and attended only by teachers, parents and others associated with the school, and their guests, as 'public' for the purposes of the 1982 Act.
That is also the gist of a letter, dated 6 February 1984, that I received from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. That was confirmed in an oral answer in the House on the following day.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary also stated in his letter that
We have recently become aware that District Councils (the licensing authorities under this 1982 Act) seem to be taking a variety of approaches to the need for licensing of school premises and the evidence is by no means restricted to Norfolk.
I regard that as further evidence of confusion. It justifies my decision to press for an Adjournment debate on the issue.
There are two major problems—the distinction between a public and private performance and, secondly, the difficulty of enforcing the provisions of the Act as they affect performances in schools.
In his letter of 2 April 1984, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Home Department repeated an assertion that I think is open to criticism. He said:
It must be remembered that school halls, under the Education (School Premises) Regulations, are subject to safety requirements designed for the protection of the pupils and staff. The controlled environment of a gathering of pupils in the hall or of their parents and other persons with an interest in the school is very different from an event open to all members of the public where problems of disorder may arise or the weight of numbers attending may increase the risk of accidents and fire and impede the access of emergency vehicles should the need occur.
As someone who knows something about schools, I do not think that that stands up to close examination. Of course, it is vital to ensure safety in schools. But the Act may not be suited for application to schools any more than it is suited to concerts and places of public worship, which are exempt from the regulations. I gather from a further letter from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science on 21 May 1984 that
the Home Office is actively considering the issue of guidance to district councils clarifying the interpretation of the legislation in its application to schools and that they hope to let us have a draft of their proposals in about two weeks' time.
I hope that my hon. Friend will reassure me tonight on that point.
As I said earlier, I have been in touch with the Norfolk Federation of Parent Teacher Associations, which is campaigning for schools to be exempt from the Act and also for the removal of the effective requirement for parents, in practice, to have to pay not only for the licence


but for the necessary improvements to the school hall to obtain that licence. Thousands of pounds are raised annually by parent-teacher associations. The effect of the Act may be a serious reduction in the money available for schools—money presently raised to pay for computers, pianos, minibuses and so on.
I agree with the editorial in the Eastern Evening News on Tuesday 20 March 1984 headlined "Release this stranglehold". The article stated:
It does seem rather silly that schools should suddenly be penalised after years of staging fund-raising activities which are often vital to their smooth economic running.
I hope that the Minister's reply will reassure me that there will be no need for hon. Members at any time to contemplate amendment of the Act. However, it is clear that the present situation is unsatisfactory. After all, there is an important distinction between schools, on the one hand, and theatres and concern halls, on the other. It is vital that safety standards in any public building are high, but there may be better ways of achieving the conditions. Indeed, if time permitted, I could suggest ways to achieve that if schools were exempted from the provisions of the Act. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that there is genuine concern in Norfolk and elsewhere that the Act needs clarification or is faulty in its application to schools.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): During his relatively brief time here, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) has shown commendable diligence on behalf of his constituents on a range of issues and has shown a considerable ability to follow through a problem, even a most detailed one. That is absolutely the right way to perform one's duties in the House, and I congratulate him warmly on the way in which he presented an interesting point to us tonight.
I wish, as he must, that he had chosen an evening when events would have brought us on rather earlier, but that is not a matter within his control. I agree with him that this matter is well worthy of being raised and is one on which, I know, he has the support of a number of schools inside and outside his constituency. I also pay tribute to the valiant effort of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) in being here. He remains silent, but he is here in support, proving Milton's precept that
They also serve who only stand and wait.
It may be helpful in dealing with the cogent points that my hon. Friend has raised if I begin by explaining why it was found necessary to introduce, in January of last year, a mandatory licensing code for indoor public entertainments. Throughout the Greater London area, a uniform system of public entertainments licensing had existed since 1965. In the case of premises elsewhere in England and Wales, the licensing of public music and dancing was governed by a patchwork quilt of different enactments.
In some parts of the country, the responsibility for issuing such licences lay with the licensing justices under the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1890 or with local authorities under local act provisions. In some places there was no control at all and in yet more places—since what control there was derived from local Acts passed before the reorganisation of local government in 1974a situation existed where a licence was required in some

parts of a local authority area but not in others. Some of these local Acts dated back to the end of the 19th century. It was, to say the least, a somewhat anarchic and unsatisfactory situation.
The decision was, therefore, taken to establish a new and uniform code of licensing. That decision was made after careful thought and in response to representations from the local authority associations, which were as conscious as we were about the difficulties that this patchwork arrangement imposed on everyone who looked, for reasons other than just bureaucratic tidiness, for some kind of orderly and consistent thread running through the whole country in arrangements of this type.
We also took into account the fact most of the recent local authority Bills had included provisions for controlling these entertainments, showing that there was widespread recognition of the need for change. The code that we are discussing is contained in schedule 1 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. Its purpose is to ensure that, for the protection of the public, premises used for public music and dancing and like entertainments have adequate standards of safety and hygiene.
It is important to be clear about exactly what types of indoor entertainment require to be licensed by district councils under the 1982 Act. These are public dancing, music or entertainment of a like kind and entertainment which consists of, or includes, any public contest, exhibition or display of boxing, wrestling, judo, karate or any similar sport. There is a common misapprehension, particularly among those who provide entertainment on school premises, that the licensing code extends to events such as quiz shows, debates, sales of work or even meetings of parent-teacher associations. Although I am bound to say that, once a Bill passes from Parliament as an Act, it is for the courts to decide what is meant by the words in the statute
entertainment of a like kind
to the best of my knowledge they have not yet been called upon to do so and it is safe and proper for me to venture the opinion from the Dispatch Box that a licence is generally required under the 1982 Act only when the entertainment consists of music, dancing or a sport of a martial nature. In particular, the performance of a play, in which music is an incidental ingredient, as with the introduction, interval or conclusion, is exempted from the requirement to hold a public entertainments licence, but may have to be considered under the Theatres Act 1968.
I shall refer more specifically to the matter of public entertainments held on school premises. The provisions of the licensing code apply to school premises just as they do, for example, to hotels or public houses. To the best of my knowledge, no exemption from licensing requirements has ever existed in respect of schools. If, before January 1983, any particular school did not require a licence to hold a public entertainment, this was almost certainly because no general licensing power existed in that part of the country or because the local licensing justices interpreted the provisions of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1980 to mean that no licence was required in respect of a building in which public entertainments were held only occasionally.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North has suggested eloquently that schools in his area have found their activities hampered by the 1982 Act's licensing provisions. He has urged upon us the need to issue advice


to district councils on the definition of "public" in the term "public entertainment", stating clearly that there are differences of opinion between local authorities on what constitutes a public entertainment.
The problem of defining when an entertainment becomes public and thus requires a licence is one that has led several district councils and others concerned with entertainment on school premises to seek guidance from the Home Office. I want to be helpful on that point. It seems to be a proper request. I venture the caveat that interpretation is a matter for the courts, but I shall do my best, subject to that proviso. There is no statutory definition in the 1982 Act of what constitutes a public entertainment, nor have the courts as yet considered that point.
There have, however, been a number of judgments arising from earlier legislation which can be helpful. I shall refer to two such judgments. The first is that in the case of Gardner v. Morris, in 1961, in which it was held that the test of whether premises are open to the public is not whether one or more members of the public are present but whether, on the evidence, any reputable member of the public, on paying for admission, could attend. The second case, that of Severn View Social Club and Institute Ltd. v. Chepstow Licensing Justices, in 1968, helps to clarify who should, or rather who should not, be regarded as a member of the public. It was held that, for entertainments licensing purposes, guests of members of a bona fide club were not members of the public and that a licence was accordingly not required for their entertainment.
Taken together, those cases are helpful, because if we apply the judgments to entertainments on school premises, we can go some way towards resolving the sort of difficulties that have arisen. In the case of entertainments, such as concerts and dances, which are promoted by a parent-teacher association and attended only by members of the association and their guests, it would seem, in the light of the judgments to which I have referred, that no entertainments licence is required. Similarly, an end-ofterm concert or similar entertainment promoted by the school and attended only by pupils, parents, teachers and their guests is unlikely to require a licence. I stress the word "guests" because it introduces the element that worried my hon. Friend—people who have no formal contact with the concert but are guests of parents. What would be significant, however, would be the advertising of the entertainment to the public much more widely than that and the presence of members of the public who merely obtained tickets as a result of such advertising without any connection with someone who, because he or she is a parent, could be said to be connected with the school. If that were to happen an entertainment licence might be needed. The salient point is not the nature of the premises in which the entertainment is provided but who is permitted to attend.
My officials have discussed the matter with the office of the director of administration of the city council. I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the council completely agrees with our view that where attendance at a concert or dance is restricted to members of a PTA and their guests, there is no need for a public entertainments licence. With the greatest respect to some of the headmasters and others with whom he has had dealings,

while I am anxious to state the law with precision it is important that they for their part do not seek to exaggerate the difficulties that the law imposes upon them. Some of the points that my hon. Friend read out from his letters teetered on the brink of doing that.
Armed with the report of the debate and with what Mr. Hyde, the deputy director of administration, has told my officials, it can be seen that there is room for a commonsense solution. We do not need to think about draconian measures to change what we believe is a perfectly commonsense law in order to reach the commonsense conclusion that we all want to reach in relation to the problem of school entertainments. No one should want to be a martyr on this issue. I assure my hon. Friend that neither the Government nor the local council want to cause schools difficulties.
On a number of occasions my hon. Friend has properly asked whether we will issue general advice to local authorities on what constitutes a public entertainment in terms of activities promoted on school premises. We have considered the point that he raised with great care. We are in his debt for his persistence on that. We do intend to do so. Therefore, he can report back to his constituents that he has had real success tonight. As a result of the efforts spearheaded by my hon. Friend we think that it would be right to issue general advice that will benefit others. A draft has been prepared and is now being discussed between Home Office officials and those of the Department of Education and Science. I hope that that circular will be issued fairly soon. I stress again that that can only be for guidance. We cannot usurp the functions of the courts. There is no question of our requiring a local authority to follow a particular line. That does not lie within our power. On the whole, we find that in other areas such guidelines are received in the spirit in which they are intended and are helpful to local authorities.
I hope that in this brief debate I have managed to put my hon. Friend's mind at rest on some of the points that he has raised. Having set out why we felt the need in the previous Parliament to make such changes, I think that he understands that that was not done from some narrow, bureaucratic desire to interfere with the legitimate activities of schools, but was forced upon us by the unsatisfactory patchwork quilt arrangements for public entertainments that existed, or in some cases did not exist, around the country.
While inevitably in all new legislation there may be some problems, there is a danger that they can he exaggerated. Given good sense on both sides, those can be resolved. I am satisfied from the inquiries that I have made that there is a great desire on the part of my hon. Friend's local authority to show good sense. I hope that he will go to his headmasters armed with commonsense guidelines which we believe are a proper and sensible interpretation of the Act and that using those people will be able to enjoy, as they always have done, entertainments in schools without, as parents, members of the PTA or guests, feeling that they thereby run foul of the law or are put to unnecessary expense.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Three o' clock.